Good afternoon, colleagues. Welcome back to the Chamber.

Before we proceed this afternoon, I would like to provide my ruling on the point of order raised by the Member for Hay River South, Mrs.

Groenewegen, on Thursday, February 14,

2008. Mrs. Groenewegen raised her point of order in response to answers provided by Premier Roland’s Oral Question 66-16(2) on Wednesday, February 13, 2008. Mrs. Groenewegen raised the point of order after reviewing the unedited Hansard for that day and therefore did so at the earliest possible opportunity.

In summary, Mrs. Groenewegen’s point of order suggested that in his reply to her question, the Premier contravened parliamentary rules by referencing specific matters contained in a document not before the House; namely, the Deh Cho Bridge concession agreement. In debate to her point of order Mrs. Groenewegen requested that the Premier table the concession agreement such that all Members of the House could have access to it in debate.

In rebuttal Premier Roland suggested that his answers were based on information contained in briefing notes and other information items ordinarily given to Ministers in preparation for question period. The Premier concluded by stating that he did not reference a page or any section of the concession agreement.

When debate concluded, I reserved my decision on the point of order to allow time to review the unedited Hansard from Wednesday, February 13, 2008, and rule on the point of order the following day.

In dealing with similar matters in this House, presiding officers have focused on one primary question: did the Member or Minister in question quote from or cite a document not before the House? Rulings by Speaker Gargan on February 13, 1998, and on February 18, 1998, exactly ten years ago, were particularly instructive.

The Rules of the Legislative Assembly are silent on this matter, so in addition to past rulings, I sought guidance from two parliamentary authorities: Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules and Forms and House Of Commons Procedure and Practice, more commonly known as Marleau and Montpetit.

Beauchesne’s citation 495(2) reads as follows:

“It has been admitted that a document, which has been cited, ought to be laid down upon the table of the House if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda.”

Citation 495(5) provides clarity on the parliamentary use of the term “cited.”

“To be cited, a document must be quoted or specifically used to influence debate. The admission that a document exists or the reading of the salutation or address of a letter does not constitute citing.”

Marleau and Montpetit adds further instruction on the matter of citing documents not before the House and the requirements to table them, quoting from page 518:

“Any document quoted by a Minister in debate or in response to a question during Question Period must be tabled… The principle upon which this is based is that where information is given to the House, the House itself is entitled to the same information as the honourable member who may quote the document. A public document referred to but not cited by a Minister need not be tabled.”

A careful review of the unedited Hansard for Wednesday, February 13, 2008, shows no clear indication that the Premier made a direct quote or a citation from any document in his response to the Member for Hay River South’s question.

The Chair concludes that the Premier did not exceed the parliamentary limits imposed by previous Speakers’ rulings or our common parliamentary authorities; therefore, the Member for Hay River South does not have a point of order.

Even if the Premier had quoted from the document in question, the matter of the public interest would still have to be taken into account. While I will not address this directly today, I will remind all Members that one of the things that makes our system of government so unique is the free flow of information between the executive and legislative branches of government. While this is often referred to as a double-edged sword, without it consensus government would cease to exist.

I want to encourage Members on both sides of the House to be diligent in terms of both sharing information when necessary and appropriate and showing discretion when that information is received. Thank you, colleagues.

We will now proceed to Orders of the Day and item 2, Ministers’ statements.

Mr. Speaker, this week is Education Week and Aurora College Week in the Northwest Territories. It is an opportunity for all of us to celebrate education in our communities.

I would like to kick off the week by providing great news. The graduation numbers for 2007 in the Northwest Territories have recently become available, and they continue to increase. In 2007, 370 students graduated high school. We are now graduating over a hundred more students each year than we did five years ago. I would like to congratulate all of these graduates.

Our students are required to successfully complete diploma exams that meet graduation requirements that are comparable to most provinces. Students who graduate in the N.W.T. with the required course work have achieved a meaningful and important accomplishment that we can all be proud of.

Students are most successful when they have many supports. Education Week is a time to encourage and thank the people who provide those supports.

This week is a time to thank educators for continuing to support our students and families by ensuring that our young Northerners are able to meet the requirements for graduation and can

move on to further studies or employment of choice.

The NWT . Teachers’ Association is continuing in their 11th year of the “Thank You for Making a Difference” campaign, and they continue to receive many nominations from across the North by students who want to recognize their teachers for making a difference in their lives.

Northern educators give a great deal of their time, both in and out of the classroom. They are some of our greatest front-line workers in our government’s goal of ensuring that our people are healthy and educated, and they often volunteer in our communities as coaches, for example.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank all the Northerners who sit on the Education Councils, authorities, the Commission scolaire and the Aurora College Board of Governors. The time and commitment they give to our system of education and to Northern students is so important. Their willingness to step forward and fill the important role of governance is important for ensuring our schools and colleges reflect the wishes of the people in our communities.

This week is also a time to encourage families and communities to keep working with their children to ensure they get to school on time, are healthy, proud of themselves and their communities, ready to learn, and develop excitement about learning and education. Helping children succeed is important for our future.

The theme of Education Week this year is “Our Community, Our School.” It is about another important component in student success: our schools themselves. We know it is easier to learn in a space that is cared for and well maintained, and our Education Councils, authorities and the Commission scolaire expend a great deal of time and effort in ensuring that that is the case.

This year’s theme recognizes that our schools are an important part of our communities and also recognizes the important role that all community members play in ensuring that our schools are respected as spaces for learning, for cultural events, for recreation and other positive community activities. When schools are successful, they are a centre of the community’s activity and the pride of the people in that community.

During this week Aurora College is celebrating their accomplishments with a number of events, including team-building activities and on-campus seminars. Aurora College continues to be important to the development of the Northern workforce, and I would also like to recognize their contributions during this special week.

In closing, I would like to thank all Members for their support of education, and I encourage everyone — parents, elders and municipal and aboriginal government leaders at all levels — to take time during Education Week and Aurora College Week to celebrate education and learning across the North. Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker.

Applause.

Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to provide Members with information on the 2008 Arctic Winter Games Youth Ambassadors Program.

As Members may recall, in 2007 youth from across the Northwest Territories traveled to the Canada Winter Games in Whitehorse, Yukon. They were excellent representatives of our Territory.

Youth volunteered with the Host Society in a wide range of activities. They demonstrated that they have immense strengths and showed great promise as future leaders.

Building on the success of this project, the Yellowknife Host Society for the 2008 Arctic Winter Games has encouraged youth from all our communities to apply to be part of the 2008 Youth Ambassador Program. Selected youth are given an opportunity to volunteer with the Games’ cultural program and related events at a wide range of venues in and around Yellowknife. They will also be provided with specialized training and be given an opportunity to enjoy other Games’ events.

The Arctic Winter Games require a significant amount of volunteer support. The willingness of the selected youth ambassadors to assist will ensure that the Games are a success and provide these youth with an exciting volunteer experience.

I am pleased that the government has been able to support this worthwhile initiative with funding from the Youth Corps Program. Opportunities like this will help to build future leaders among today’s youth, while ensuring that the Arctic Winter Games are a success.

Item 3, Members’ statements, Ms. Bisaro.

Yellowknife is home to a potential health and safety risk, Mr. Speaker.

Water and sewer infrastructure exists in one small corner of the city that is well beyond its shelf life and badly in need of repair. These pipes are more than 30 years old and a disaster waiting to happen. Northlands Trailer Park, Condominium Corporation No. 8., sits just outside downtown Yellowknife and provides low-cost and affordable housing to some 1,200 Yellowknife residents. Many are low-income earners or are on fixed incomes.

Because the trailer park is a condominium, it’s treated like a private homeowner. The costs of repairs to their infrastructure must be borne by the homeowners. Estimates of the costs to replace or update Northlands’ roads, water and sewer range from $10 million to $15 million. With about 275 condo members, that works out to a potential $50,000 per member.

These owners are facing a huge personal expense for basic infrastructure needs, and they have been struggling for years to find a fair and equitable solution. I believe that the cost should not be borne by this group alone. The federal government has infrastructure program funding that must be made available to these residents through the G.N.W.T. Nor is the G.N.W.T. blameless in either a moral or an ethical sense.

At the time the Condo Corp No. 8 was formed, the NWT . Condominium Act was very outdated and inadequate. It provided no protection to buyers from less-than-ethical sellers. The Condo Corp got stuck with degraded infrastructure and had no legal recourse with the seller. The city bears no responsibility for this parcel of land because the Condo Corp is treated like a private homeowner.

To the city’s credit, they have been assisting Northlands for several years. City funds have been spent in man-hours and seed money for studies, and the amount is considerable. Northlands’ owners are not looking for a handout, but they are looking for a helping hand.

We are the parent of a struggling child, in this case, and the G.N.W.T. can assist. We can facilitate some of the Building Canada Fund dollars for this project. We can provide funding for community emergency assistance. We can provide a low-interest loan to the Condo Corp.

Government assistance for this type of situation is not unprecedented. In previous years other N.W.T. communities have received funding for water and sewer emergency repairs.

Mr.

Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to

conclude my statement.

Unanimous consent granted.

This is an issue of public safety. A major sewer collapse will create both unsanitary

and uninhabitable conditions in the trailer park. It’s not inconceivable that 1,200 people will be displaced from their homes with nowhere to go.

So when planning this year’s budget, consider the plight of the Northlands residents. Be the helping hand and get this infrastructure replacement going before it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, [English translation not provided.]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention that on Friday, February 15, 2008, at 11 or 11:15 in the morning, Tommy King of Fort Resolution passed away here in Yellowknife. Tommy was 65 years old. He was born September 15, 1942, in Rocher River and was one of the last families to remain in Rocher River. He was a trapper. He spent years working for Patterson Sawmill out around Hay River, falling logs and so on.

They’ll be returning his remains to Fort Resolution tomorrow, and then there will be a funeral on Thursday in Fort Resolution.

One of the consequences of decentralization is that even where we have good intentions, it may not work. Such is the case when concentrating Aurora College programs at the Thebacha Campus in Fort Smith.

As much as it pains me to say this — and it does — the Thebacha Campus is not meeting the needs of all Northern students. I’ve had concerns from constituents brought forward to me who fear for their personal safety because of the incidents of violence and intimidation in Fort Smith. This causes them to change their mind and refuse to want to continue training at the Fort Smith College.

How can we expect people to attend these courses and gain qualifications when they’re not welcome in this community? How can we expect students to enroll into programs that take them into greater degrees of isolation?

There’s a clear demand for trades’ training in the N.W.T., yet trades’ programs in Fort Smith have suffered a drop of two-thirds in enrolment last year alone.

I really have to question whether it is the best use of government funding to continue focusing activities and programming at the Thebacha

College. Mr.

Speaker, with two-thirds of an

enrolment drop, I question if funding for instructors and programming drop by the associated amount. I understand the lights and the heating bills need to be left on, but I question the programming.

I am of the opinion that we should be offering more programming at the Yellowknife Campus, particularly in trades, and in doing so, a greater interest in residents would result. They need to expand the Yellowknife Campus. And that has been proven, because it has been deserving of this opportunity for many years. I think good discussion needs to finally, seriously take place.

Mr.

Speaker, in tight fiscal times, we need to

concentrate our resources where they make sense and question if they being spent properly in that community. It’s not as much in the people as a whole, but if our students are going there and they’re not welcome, we should be asking ourselves hard, tough questions. The program may not run smoothly, but sometimes there’s a bump in the road. Those need to be addressed, and those questions need to be answered.

Mr. Speaker, later today I will have questions for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment to discuss how we can get to the bottom of this and start treating our students fairly.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to use my Member’s statement today to talk about affirmative action or, in some cases, the lack of affirmative action.

I look to a time when most of the jobs were taken up by southerners who were just up here for the money. Many of those people decided to stay and make the North their home, and for that, I’ve always thanked them.

As more and more aboriginal Northerners became trained to take over many departments, Mr. Speaker, I thought we were turning a corner. But I was wrong. After what I heard from this individual with two degrees — a P1 candidate who can’t even get an interview for a management job — I think we’re back in the old days when that was the standard way of operating within the government.

I heard from a young lady who applied for a position with the G.N.W.T. and didn’t even get an interview. That angered me, Mr.

Speaker. She attended

Aurora College, but she’s not qualified for work with the G.N.W.T. Is this an indication of what we think of the programs that are offered by Aurora College, where we don’t even use some of the graduates?

The qualifications…. Departments are coming up with creative ways to eliminate Northerners from positions. Qualifications are asked that take many Northerners out of contention for positions within the G.N.W.T. Then when some are put into a position, people who have been there for years are asked to train them. Yet they apply, and they can’t even get an interview, or they’re not qualified for these positions and are asked to train someone that comes in.

I want to see Northerners trained for advancement within the G.N.W.T. Transfer assignments should not be a way to get around the system and hand-pick people.

We can contribute, Mr. Speaker. We want to be able to contribute on merit and not just to fill statistics or fill a quota. We’ve come a long way, and we want to be a part of the future of the N.W.T. We have the most to gain or lose from this, because it’s where we’re going to live for the rest of our lives.

Mr. Speaker, I look around in this Assembly and see over half the Members in here are aboriginal. I see the other half that are longtime white Northerners who plan on being up here for awhile.

We should use this as an opportunity to get an indication of where we’ve come from, where we can go, and how we have to use this to protect the people that are out there that are trying to advance within the government system. We have to ensure that we do whatever we can to move these people along, because they can do the job. Like I said, they want to do the job on merit. I see it.

Mr. Speaker, as I tried to enjoy myself at home this weekend in Hay River, I couldn’t mistake the feelings of disappointment and frustration and unrest over the course that our government has charted for us in relation to the Deh Cho Bridge project. I had many people come up to me and remind me about the Deh Cho Bridge project, because everyone who came up had concerns as well.

I’m disappointed in the leadership, who are prepared to sacrifice transparency and accountability and the right of the people to know. I’m frustrated because, in the absence of clear and full communication on this project, some people are willing to throw up their hands and say it’s too late, it’s too complicated, and it would cost too much to reconsider.

The editorial in today’s paper is right in pointing out that people don’t know if they should be for the bridge or not, because it’s hard to understand the business case, the liability or the benefits.

To me, it’s like someone decided they’re going to build this bridge at any cost. We keep being told that the price has nowhere to go but up if we wait. I think we just saw an unprecedented inflation of construction costs in the past seven years while this bridge was being considered. I’m not an economist, Mr.

Speaker, but certainly, if you look to our

neighbours to the south — you hear all the news coming out of the U.S. — I would say perhaps that with this run on development, there’s a window ahead for a cooling-off period.

I know that allowing ourselves to lower the bar of what is an acceptable standard of accountability is wrong. It’s demoralizing, because we came here to do a job with good intentions of upholding what we believe in. I’m not prepared to let that go. Mr. Speaker, I can’t do that, because this bridge project process stinks.

People now hide behind the technicality of what they legally can do as opposed to having the courage to rise to the challenge of doing what they should do. What they should do is admit that this government had no business entering into a 35-year financial commitment three days before a new government was elected. They had no business in putting through a piece of legislation which had been passed on the pretense of a $60 million project that has now risen to $150 million. They had no business committing this government to a $9 million loan guarantee which, at numerous times, they said would not increase. They had no business proceeding without government support.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

Unanimous consent granted.

They had no business proceeding without federal support, even though they said that if federal support wasn’t forthcoming, the project wouldn’t continue. They had no business committing future governments to additional investments of $2 million a year. They had no business exposing our government to financial harm by agreeing to absorb eligible cost overruns as long as they pertain to things that are unforeseen.

They certainly had no business assuming what was most important to Northerners in light of their knowledge of upcoming financial circumstances that resulted in this same government looking for $135 million in reductions over the next two years.

I’m going to speak today about the Deh Cho Bridge project.

I’m very concerned that the government is so far into this project that it now can’t even begin to estimate what it would cost for us to get out of it.

Regular Members of the 15th Legislative Assembly

passed two motions in this House — one in May of last year and the other in August — demanding an updated economic analysis and some detail on the concession agreement before it was signed.

Mr. Speaker, we had assurances from the Premier that we would have that type of information prior to the government signing off on that project. As we all know, the deal was signed on September 28 — three days, 72 hours before the election on October 1.

The former Premier stated in the House on August 21 that:

“When we come to negotiations, we don’t negotiate this in public any more than we negotiate most things that are negotiable in public. We are elected. We will do the negotiations. We will assess whether or not it is viable. We will go ahead based on whether or not it makes good economic sense.”

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague Mrs. Groenewegen, I am not an economist. But I do know that if you are going to go from a project cost of $50 million to $60 million to $150 million and the net positive benefit of $38 million to a negative impact of $50 million, then it would be most prudent — especially if it’s not your money but that of the residents of the Northwest Territories — to just say no to the project before signing off on it.

Mr. Speaker, it may be wise of us to ask for DNA samples from all the Ministers so that they can’t conveniently claim it was the last government to sign the agreement and thus there’s nothing for them to do.

There are some things the Premier and the cabinet can and should be doing. They should order a peer review of the financing of the project. They should develop a policy on future P3 investment and involvement. They should determine who is accountable for signing off on that agreement three days prior to the election.

Mr. Speaker, we’re a small government. As I see it, we’ll be on the hook for the project if traffic volumes don’t materialize, if there’s a design defect five years from construction, or if interest rates climb.

If we index our $4.5 million of government money over the next 35 years, that’s $264 million. Can we afford to do this? I don’t think so, Mr. Speaker.

: [English translation not provided.]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to speak about the problems of the drug plan for G.N.W.T. employees.

The G.N.W.T. drug plan is administered through Sun Life insurance. Its administration seems to be rather complicated. If an employee needs prescription medication, they have to pay the cost out of their pocket. Once they fill out the form and send it to Sun Life, they will be reimbursed for 80 per cent of the cost. It often takes two months for people to get their money. That is two months where people are short on their budget, two months waiting for reimbursement of a drug benefit they are entitled to.

Now let’s look at a chronic illness like diabetes, where the patient needs insulin daily. The N.W.T. extended health care plan covers the cost of insulin, so G.N.W.T. residents get the full amount for insulin reimbursed through the public extended health care plan.

But now let’s see what happens if a G.N.W.T. employee has diabetes and needs insulin. First, the employee has to pay the $800 per month for the insulin out of their pocket. Then they wait for two months for 80 per cent from Sun Life. Only after this wait is the employee allowed to claim the remaining 20 per cent from the G.N.W.T. extended health care plan.

Basically, this government discriminates against its own employees. They need to wait the longest to get their essential medicines paid for. This causes distrust and anxiety.

Mr. Speaker, there is a solution to the problem. The Yukon Government employee drug plan — with the same company — has a smarter way of administering and processing the claims. In the Yukon, employees get a swipe card that the pharmacist swipes, and they receive the 80 per cent Sun Life payment directly. So the patient only needs to pay the 20 per cent out of pocket. In the case of a chronic disease, the remaining 20 per cent could be charged directly by the pharmacy to the extended health care plan.

Mr. Speaker, I will have questions for the Minister of Human Resources to explain why we cannot do the same.

Mr. Speaker, women make up 48 per cent of our population, yet they are way under-represented in elected positions, government and industry. While industrial development changes social conditions in the N.W.T., women bear the brunt of the stresses and tensions that take place.

We have an opportunity to take a preventative approach that will reduce these stresses and the long-term costs associated with them.

Women typically have primary responsibility for family and often for community and cultural wellness. Thus, their priority concerns for health and social safety, security, education and social harmony are natural. They have knowledge, skill and experience in these areas that are essential, as we develop preventative policies.

Under-representation by women in political and policy decision making means less public support for social, cultural and community needs. It sends the message that families, communities and cultures are less important than profit-making interests.

Mr. Speaker, this situation has developed through history, as in ancient times humankind shifted away from societies that were matriarchal or that gave equal status to both women and men. Through global colonization, we have arrived at today’s world, which is typically patriarchal and does not ensure that women are included in the decision-making.

In this situation, as reflected here in this government, the few women that get into political and economic decision-making spheres tend to be there for a long time and continue to be the first women in these positions — i.e., they remain in a minority position. I know you all agree that we are greatly appreciative of their voices and that we need to hear more of women’s perspectives and leadership.

Mr. Speaker, the incredibly high rate of violence against women in the N.W.T. reflects the absence of women in the power dynamic here. Since the diamond mines opened a decade ago, the rate of violent crime has doubled, and it has risen by 40 per cent in recent years.

Mr. Speaker, women have different perspectives than men, and they belong at this decision-making table. We must recognize that gender is an issue that impacts the socio-economic circumstances of women, families and communities. We need to collect and monitor social data by gender and put a gender lens on the development of public policy. We need to support annual gatherings of women and demonstrate that we understand this issue and are willing to take action on it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to continue my statement.

Unanimous consent granted.

Will this Assembly put gender on the table by recognizing women’s central and equal role in society? We need to adopt gender-based

analysis as part of our routine decision and policy making.

For prevention and real progress on real issues, let’s choose to do things differently, and let’s start now. Quana, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, my statement today is dealing with the area of custom adoption and the length the process takes for something that you would think is straightforward and simple.

Mr. Speaker, custom adoption has been in place for hundreds or thousands of years. First Nations people — our grandparents — have adopted their grandchildren for many years. Yet the process this government is using is lengthy, cumbersome and also frustrating for a lot of custom adoption parents who have gone through the process.

Mr. Speaker, a year and a half later, the process continues on. We have legislation in place that doesn’t work and is not user-friendly to the client. I think it’s important, as government, that we take a close look at that legislation and find out why it’s not working, especially in regard to adoptions and the number of children we have — especially First Nations children — in our system by way of foster care. I think it’s important, as government, that we do whatever we can to ensure custom adoption is used and also that grandparents have the ability to understand a process that’s simple, straightforward and allows for a process that does not take a year and a half.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the Minister on this matter. Also, I have spoken to the parent of a Kwakiut’l child with regard to his granddaughter, whom they spent many years trying to reunite. Also, working with other parents in our communities — especially grandparents — where their children are apprehended, their grandchildren are taken away, the grandparents find it very frustrating that they can’t get access to their grandchildren because of the courts’ apprehension orders and the policies and procedures this government puts in place. A lot of grandparents are frustrated, and they’re wondering what did they do wrong because they can’t access their grandchildren.

I think that as a government, we have a responsibility to clear that up, to see that effect on people in the Northwest Territories. I think this government has to find ways to ensure that our legislation is user-friendly.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking the Minister of Health and Social Services questions on this matter.

I’m pleased to recognize my Yellowknife South neighbour, Heather McCagg-Nystrom. Heather’s curling with the N.W.T./Yukon women’s curling team, skipped by Kerry Galusha-Koe, this week in Regina, Saskatchewan, at the Scott Tournament of Hearts. Other members of the team include Teejay Surik and Dawn Moses. Husband, Jeff, and daughters Jenna and Ava are cheering Heather and the N.W.T./Yukon team on. Thank you.

Item 4, returns to oral questions. Item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery. Mr. Bromley.

I’d like to recognize Miss Amanda Mallon in the audience today. Miss Mallon is president of the NWT Teachers’ Association and, I believe, also a member on the board of directors for the Canadian Teachers Federation.

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to recognize Amanda Mallon, president of the NWT Teachers’ Association. Mahsi.

Item 6, acknowledgements. Item 7, oral questions.

Mr.

Speaker, I came to

session with a lot of things to talk about, but I have to keep asking questions about this bridge, because that’s what the people want. They want answers.

I think everyone understands that the money that has been spent to date on the bridge — the $9 million — has been by way of a loan which was guaranteed by this government. But I want to move on to the larger issue of the loan to build the bridge, which is being secured by the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation.

I want to ask the Premier if our government is in fact guaranteeing that loan. If things go wrong and the loan is defaulted on, whose responsibility is the over $140 million — the $160 million — loan that is being secured by the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation? Who is responsible for it?

Mr. Speaker, the Member in this House a number of days ago talked about the facts of where we are involved, why we are

involved, questioning as well, as was stated in the House, that the government is backstopping this through the concession agreement. But there are limitations.

We’re not guaranteeing the large loan. We’ve guaranteed the $9 million, which will be paid out once the dollars flow from the lending partners. We are involved through the concession agreement, through the overall indemnification of the lenders.

So in fact, we are co-signing the loan with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and indemnifying the corporation with the lenders, which is kind of a fancy way, a different way, of saying that in fact our government is backstopping. We are the guarantors of the loan should something go wrong.

If that is the case, then, we are way out on a limb on this project. I need the people to understand. I need the public to understand where we’re at on that.

So will the Premier please confirm that when he says we are there as a government to indemnify the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation if the loan is defaulted on, it is in fact like guaranteeing the loan?

Furthermore, I’d like to know if that $160 million — or whatever the amount of the loan turns out to be — is calculated into our $500 million borrowing limit as a government.

Mr. Speaker, the total amount of the project that is being financed by the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation doesn’t fall onto our books because as the project is established, it is the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation that is seeking the money and going to lenders. We are a part of it, yes. As has been said in this House, as has been laid out from the start through a number of factors — that is, the toll structure — it is also a part of the fact that we’re taking money on an annual basis that we put into the ice-road crossing and the ferry crossing

As well, as was made known months before the last election, the government would also, once we did not get confirmation from the federal government, have to bump another couple of million dollars on an annual basis to make this project a go. That was discussed and was known since the days of the 15th Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier a few days ago committed in this House to putting together an estimate of what it would cost for us to terminate this agreement to proceed with the Deh Cho Bridge. A few days have now passed. I’d like to know where we’re at on that evaluation on what it would cost to terminate this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that we would have it today, but it is being worked on as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, because the Premier so freely said that this information was known to the 15th Assembly, I’d like to ask him if

he’s willing to produce any proof that Members of this House knew all these facts which are now just coming out. I mean, I’m finding out stuff every day on the Deh Cho Bridge project that I didn’t know before.

I’d like to now ask the Premier if he will lay some proof on the table that Regular Members of this House were aware of what was going on. We didn’t even know the concession agreement was going to be signed on September 28. That is out there.

Mr.

Speaker, I guess if

nothing else, we have to acknowledge the Member’s passion to ensure that her questions get asked on a regular basis from the 15th Assembly

into the 16th Assembly.

The fiscal plans for this project were known. We can provide a chronology of these things that happened. We could even look at Hansard when questions were asked by the same two Members about this specific project: of the parameters, of the additional money the Government of the Northwest Territories is willing to put into this project that is over and above the ferry contract, the ice-road crossing. That’s been known. The guarantee that was in place: that’s been known because that’s been in place for quite a number of years. So it’s public, the fact that the questions have been raised in this House.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the question about “Why was it signed three days before an election?” is one of concern to Members who’ve carried on, but the fact is that if the Members in the last Assembly had the support to cut the project, they could have cut the project. They didn’t.

Now let’s get on with work, because we’ve got to start building the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health and Social Services. It’s in regard to the length of time that these custom adoption processes are taking.

Has her department looked at the possibility of doing a review on the program to find out where the barriers are or why the process is taking so long? Has the Minister directed her department to look at the possibility of finding out, of streamlining this process so that it doesn’t take as long as it does

now, where it’s taking a year and a half to approve an application?

Mr.

Speaker, I thank the

Member for the question and for talking to me about it.

I can advise the Member and the House that normally a custom adoption process should not take that long at all. It’s quite a routine process. The department does not have a direct role to play. It merely ratifies adoptions that have been agreed to. Usually this is a pretty speedy process and without too much hardship.

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell me if she had an opportunity to talk to the Minister of Justice to see if it’s possible to make amendments to improve this program and also look at the possibility of improving access for, especially, grandparents to their grandchildren? Since the legislation has been passed, grandparents’ rights to their grandchildren seem to have been watered down, that they’re no longer part of the approval process and also of having the ability of access that they had in the past.

Mr.

Speaker, it is my

understanding — and I’d be happy to look into that — that as the system stands now, as long as the parties agree on the adoption arrangement, they put the documents together through the adoptions commissioner in regional offices. They just have to submit that to the Supreme Court, and the department issues adoption certificates thereafter. In the situation that the Member has brought forward to me, there were some logistical errors and uncompleted documents that caused difficulty.

I just want to reiterate that the custom adoption process is quite simplified. It’s a process that the department and the government support, and I’d be happy to look into the possibility of making it easier for grandparents, which I believe can be done because we, by and large, as a government support custom adoptions.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the adoption process, I mentioned to the Minister that a lot of times children are taken away from their home community, from their immediate family, and moved elsewhere. I’d like to ask the Minister: is there a program in place to reunite the children with their families, say at Christmas, Easter, summer, whatnot? Also, who pays for that cost of bringing these families back together during special occasions of the year like Christmas, Easter, summer holidays, whatnot? A lot of times I get that question asked by grandparents wanting to see their grandchildren. Again, if they’re taken out of their home communities, they don’t have that day-to-day access, and they might be lucky to see them at Christmas.

I’d like to ask the Minister: is there that program in place, and is it being explained to the public exactly how that program works?

Mr. Speaker, I think one thing we should be aware of is the fact that adoptions of any kind — and that includes custom adoptions — make an arrangement between a parent and child more like the natural parent and child relationship, in that once you adopt a child, you become responsible for all of their financial issues and other responsibilities that a natural parent would. The adoption process legalizes that relationship. This is a question that often comes up in cases comparing foster-parent situations to adoption. Once you adopt a child or if a grandparent adopts a child, a lot of financial support that might have been there in other circumstances will not be there anymore.

Mr.

Speaker, custom adoption is

nothing new to aboriginal people. They’ve been doing it for thousands of years, and I think it’s important to realize that that process still exists in a lot of our communities. The frustration that we’re having in the aboriginal communities is that because the way the legislation is drafted, a lot of people are losing the traditional ability to custom-adopt, of how it used to be in the past. So I think it’s important that as government we look at it to see if it’s meeting the measurement of aboriginal people on exactly what their expectations are, especially grandparents.

I’d like to ask the Minister again if she would get back to me on the possibility, dates and times, of whether there are going to be amendments made, along with the Minister of Justice, so that we can amend it to make sure that it takes into account those issues that I raised here today.

Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to make that commitment to look at the process to see what improvements, if any, could be made and whether or not it would require legislative amendments. It is my understanding that over the years we have gone a long way in improving and supporting this process, but obviously if there’s any room for improvement, I would be happy to look at that with the Member.

In my Member’s statement I pointed out that the Yukon government has a better way of ensuring that their employees receive their prescription drug reimbursement in a timely fashion. I pointed out that the G.N.W.T. puts unnecessary stress on its employees who are already sick and need their medication to get better, to stabilize their chronic illness so they can actually make it to work.

New in the mail to me I’ve got an update from the Public Service Health Care Plan, Mr.

Speaker,

indicating that they are working at getting us a pay-direct drug card, but they’ve put it off for another year, till sometime in 2009. I’d like to ask the Minister of Human Resources: can the Minister look at and work with the negotiation process to see if they can speed up the process of getting it implemented back to 2008?

Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased that the Member asked that question, because we always want to make sure that our employees are well treated, and we don’t want to inflict any undue hardship on our employees. I’d have to get some more detailed information from the Member, because as I understand it, employees, on a monthly basis, fill out a declaration form with the drugstore of their choice or the pharmacy of their choice, and as long as they submit this monthly form, they only get charged for 20 per cent. Having said that, I’m certainly prepared to improve the system.

Mr.

Speaker, there are still

employees out there using their cash, and it’s being tied up in the health care system, and it’s much-needed cash, especially in these times.

Can the Minister tell me when he can get back to me with the information he’s committed to? I think he mentioned about some kind of form that they fill out. I don’t know if that exists. Maybe he can tell me about it. I think that the important thing here is that a drug care card will be a lot more efficient and effective for our employees. I’d like to know when the Minister will be working on this issue so that employees get it a lot sooner. Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, we can check into that right away. I understand that in the communities drugs are provided at no cost and that in the larger centres that do have pharmacies, with the forms that are submitted, they are only charged 20 per cent. So we’ll undertake to look at which employees are falling through the cracks, and also we will work towards having a more efficient system.

Mr. Speaker, just in terms of implementing this pay-direct drug card, I’d like to know: what exactly are the issues? Negotiations have been underway since 2006. It’s been a couple of years now. What exactly is the issue that’s delaying it for another year, to 2009? Mahsi.

There are a number of issues that have to be dealt with. I guess the most critical one would be for the businesses or pharmacies that dispense the drugs to have the equipment and technology to be able to utilize such a drug card.

Secondly, how do you control costs or dispensing of drugs? It would have to be a system whereby

only approved drugs would be dispensed, and there would have to be some sort of cost control.

Mr.

Speaker, in my Member’s

statement today I spoke of the Thebacha Campus in Fort Smith and the fact that we may not be meeting all the needs of our Northern students. It really is a question of safety and effectiveness. We cannot have a 67 per cent drop in our trades program without that raising a warning flag.

I’ll go a little further and say that we had a Social Worker program offered in that community. For two years in a row it had little or no attendance. It had to be cancelled and was moved to Yellowknife. There it was picked up, and it’s being subscribed to quite fully.

My question really comes down to safety and effectiveness. Would the Minister of EC&E be willing to commit to this House to do an independent survey of current students, and students from the past two years, to find out their concerns about the program being offered at the Thebacha Campus, and to make sure we can look into solving some of these issues?

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Yes, indeed, safety, effectiveness and efficiency are our top priorities as a government and, more specifically, the trades programs that we offer in the communities.

We do have campuses that deliver various programs in the communities — Inuvik, Fort Smith, Yellowknife — and in other smaller campuses at the community level. We do provide pilot programs as well, all leading towards certification or diploma programs, and also towards a teacher education program. We are very proud of the programs that we deliver on all campuses.

With regard to a review, there is one currently being conducted. It’s in the works as we speak, and our department is looking into that as well. Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, if there's a review going on, I'd like to know what the review means. Does the review mean you're going to go to an independent survey? Does it mean you're going to create questions, or you're going to check with students? What is the definition of a review? Does it include the staff, the management and the bureaucracy of Aurora College, to make sure we're delivering safe and effective programs for our students?

Mahsi. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education, Culture and Employment

is working closely with Aurora College to perform a thorough review of apprenticeship and occupational certification programs. The review is being undertaken right now on a final technical report. There are surveys happening, and we're trying to get input from different sectors about what is working and what is not working. Then we will provide recommendations on moving forward. That is currently under review, and it will be brought forward for our department’s discussion. Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, I heard nothing about review of students past and present to find out about the students’ safety. I heard nothing about — if I may quote from the Minister’s statement today: “Students are most successful when they have many supports….” I want to make sure we're supporting our students.

Would the Minister be willing to make sure that the terms of reference are provided to Members? Would the Minister be willing to accept more questions as to what type of survey questions should be out there, just to make sure that we're doing the right kind of review at this time?

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.

I would be pleased to do that. Also, it would help us immensely if the Member would make us aware of the job categories or positions that he had concerns with.

Final supplementary, Mr.

Robert

McLeod.

The reason we bring our concerns to the floor sometimes is because we’re not getting the answers we think constituents deserve. I’d like to ask the Minister… I’d be happy to sit down with all seven of you over there and give you my concerns as to what could be changed, what needs to be done. Whatever you do with them would be up to the department.

I’d like to ask the Minister if his office reviews all job transfer assignments and job applications or job ads.

This is a priority that we’ve undertaken. We review all job ads for consistency. We also try to reduce our costs as much as possible so that we can facilitate the hiring process.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has sort of inferred that he doesn’t like the idea of this debate. I can certainly understand why. It’s not a debate that he could actually win, because he says that we did not ask for the updated cost/benefit analysis and we didn’t pass any motions in this House asking for the concession agreement.

I’m looking at Hansard from May 10, when Mr. Ramsay states that it is very important that the government shares the information with the Members of the House so that we can ask questions so we can access the risk to the government, speaking of the Deh Cho Bridge project. That was on May 7. At that time the former Minister of Transportation, Mr.

Menicoche, said

“Yes, we can provide that to the Member and to the committee at the appropriate time.” Well, the appropriate time was about two weeks ago, and this was in May 2007.

How can the Premier stand here today and say that they were forthcoming with information as a government when we asked in May and we just got the agreement two weeks ago? Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, maybe I’m

having a dream and I’ve woken up in the 15th Assembly. This is the 16th Assembly. Members

have asked for information, I’ve committed to that information, and we’ve provided that information. Thank you.

Let’s talk about what’s happened in this Assembly. We got elected on October 1. We came back here and stood up in this House and asked question after question after question about the Deh Cho Bridge project. The Premier stood up and answered those questions, and not once did he mention the fact that the concession agreement had already been signed on September 28.

I don’t know exactly how stupid he thinks we are. However, I want to tell you that I wouldn’t even have asked him the questions if I had known a concession agreement had been signed on September 28.

Yeah, let’s talk about the 16th Assembly. When did

the Premier think he might tell us that the concession agreement had already been signed after we asked all those questions at our very first sitting of this Legislature?

Yes, questions about the 16th Legislative Assembly. The fact is that Members did not ask the question itself. I responded to questions that were given to me in this House when the Members asked for the specific information, worked with the departments, brought that information, and had that delivered to committee.

In light of the absolute barrage of questions that the Premier was asked, and given that he had full knowledge that the concession agreement had already been signed, I want to ask the Premier did he not feel that he had any duty to the Members of this House to just inform us of this very significant milestone which had been passed on the Deh Cho Bridge project: that the concession agreement had, in fact, already been signed? We had to find this out weeks and weeks later, after asking all session.

Did the Premier feel no obligation to open this and transparently share something that significant with Members of this House when we didn’t ask exactly that question?

Mr. Speaker, if we go back to

Hansard, the first session that we had was in late November — or was it mid-November? — shortly after our election. I was just voted in as Premier of

the Northwest Territories, had not yet assigned portfolios the first couple of days of session, and I took every question from every area of concern in the Northwest Territories.

I can’t go back to all the other types of questions, but I did my best to answer Members in that area. As I already stated when this previous question was asked of me later on, if I didn’t jump to the conclusion that that was the specific item the Member wanted, I apologized for that. Do I need to apologize again?

Now we’re talking about the 16th Assembly. On October 19, the Premier stated:

“The contracts that are being signed are not from the Government of the Northwest Territories; they are through the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation group as well as potential constructors of the bridge…we know that there’s a commitment to start some of the early earthwork process. But ultimately no contracts or, from our government side, no liability is being held until we know, for example, they get the permits from the federal government….”

I mean, that’s pretty clear — no contracts, no liability. And that was on October 19, 2007. How would the Premier respond to that?

Mr. Speaker, we need to go back a little bit and see what the actual question was that I responded to. The questions were about actual contracts for doing the work for ordering materials. That’s my understanding. I have to qualify this; otherwise, I’ll be thrown out for saying something or committing to something else.

I’ve been trying to respond to Members of this House the majority of the time on this specific project. I’ve looked at the information, I’ve provided what knowledge I had and what issues I was trying to address on the day, and I’ve responded since then when we’ve got the specifics and provided that information. So what more do the Members want in the sense of this specific area? We’ve given all the update information.

And yes, Mr.

Speaker, as the 16th Legislative

Assembly, we are, in a sense, married to this project. We’re going through this process. But I think we need to take a step back from here and look at the bigger picture of the Northwest Territories. Are we saying that as the Northwest Territories, we’re not prepared to look at any major infrastructure for the North, so that we can see the dreams for the development for the North happen in a more proactive way than it has in the past?

Mr. Speaker, last year I had e-mail from a constituent of mine whose daughter was subject to tasering at one of our facilities in Inuvik. I

had spoken to the Minister of Justice, and he assured me they were looking into it.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if his department has conducted their internal review of the tasering incident in Inuvik.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Member’s question on this specific area.

I did manage to talk to my department to try to get more information on what really took place in Inuvik. I did get some feedback on the incident that had taken place. The Member was asking how many were used during 2006-2007. I’m willing to share…. We did have 12 incidents in the community of Inuvik during September 2006 to November 2007 — fifteen months.

I thank the Minister for his response.

I’d like to ask the Minister if the RCMP have conducted an internal review as to the tasering incident in Inuvik and if that report was made available to the Justice department.

Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the department may have that information, which I don’t have in front of me today. I can certainly get that information, and I’m willing to share with the Member.

Again, I appreciate the Minister’s response to that, and I’d like to ask him if he gets the department review and the RCMP review, would he commit to sharing these reports with the mother of the girl that was tasered? She is the one that raised the incident, and she was quite concerned. We’ve been communicating for about a year now. Will he commit to sharing their findings with the mother of the girl?

Mr.

Speaker, it is

important to share information and have fair communication. I’m willing to share that with the Member and also the parent, if we can set up a meeting with our department and allow the Member to sit down with the parent. I feel similar incidents need to be addressed — why this took place and whatnot, and therefore this information can be shared from the department. Mahsi.

Final supplementary, Mr. McLeod.

I’d also like to ask the Minister if he would report back to me on any actions that may have been taken against the folks who did the actual tasering.

Mr. Speaker, our,

department is working carefully with the “G” Division, the RCMP headquarters, trying to get as much information out as we possibly can with all these incidents. Once that is shared with our

department, I will be more than willing to share with the Member. Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, while I quickly ran upstairs to type a written question, my office was contacted again by someone else who had another unhappy experience at the Thebacha College, which I referenced.

Mr. Speaker, the point is — I hope it is being well made — that there is something strange going on there, and the fact is that if students are not feeling safe or their safety is being put in jeopardy in any way, I hope that message is being to delivered to the Minister of EC&E.

Mr. Speaker, with all that I’ve said right now, will the Minister be willing to put this so-called review on pause just so we can have a quick look at these terms of reference to make sure that the problems that are being identified are being looked into and effectively dealt with?

Mr. Speaker, the review we talked about earlier is before us, within our department. That has been conducted ECE and also Aurora College on apprenticeship and occupational certification and the program set that we’d deliver.

Of those issues that the Member is referring to — some of the areas that have been referenced as well — he listed intimidation and fear. Our department is aware of things that are happening within that community. We do have a team that is reviewing these documents. There’s more ongoing communication happening within our department and Aurora College on that specific item. Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, without hurting

anyone’s feelings or insulting anyone, I have to tell you when the Minister says that ECE and Aurora College are doing this review, it’s like putting the fox in charge of the hen house, for goodness’ sake. I mean, why doesn’t he say to me that the president is reviewing the effectiveness of the campus in Fort Smith — by the way, where he lives and runs the program. Wow, I’m sure that will be independent.

Mr. Speaker, what I’m asking for is an independent review. What I’m asking for is: will the Minister bring to Members — maybe just myself, but I’ll tell you that I’ve heard more concerns from other Members…? Would he be willing to bring forward the terms of reference so we could have a look at them and make sure that we’re doing a proper review?

Mr.

Speaker, we are

willing to work with the Members on any issues that

have an impact in their riding, whether it be Yellowknife or Fort Smith. We are willing and accepting any recommendation, any advice, any input that Members can provide to us that can benefit the community, that can speak for the community. How can we improve at the community level? Program delivery, where students are living — as much information that the Members can provide, we’re willing to work with it. Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, I had a mother tell me that her kid woke up in the health centre in Fort Smith because he got a beating. Like I said, he woke up in the health centre.

Mr. Speaker, I had another person tell me about being chased running to the store. And the stories go on and on and on. I’ve heard that the students feel intimidated throughout the community; it’s like the community doesn’t want them.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know exactly who is doing this review? Who? Do we have a name of who’s doing this review? And how much is this going to cost us, and where are we going to take it?

Mr. Speaker, again, our department is working with the community of Fort Smith, identifying what’s happening out there — the incident the Member is referring to — because it does reflect on the programs being delivered, the enrolment and so forth. So I’m not going to specifically say this person is responsible. It’s all departments that are conducting the review. Mahsi.

Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

As I said earlier today — and I’ll reference again that people don’t want to go there — we have a Social Worker program that people don’t want to go to. It wasn’t fully subscribed to, cancelled, moved to Yellowknife and was fully subscribed to and even over-subscribed. The trades have dropped by 67 per cent — two thirds. So the fact is that people aren’t wanting to go there.

What is this Minster doing about this process, and is he cutting back on the college’s budget and funding because people don’t want go there?

For the campuses, we’ve delivered many, many graduates, post-secondary, in Inuvik, Fort Smith, Yellowknife campus, especially with the journeyman ticket holders. We’re proud to say we’ve graduated those individuals from the communities over the long years that we’ve serviced the communities. So we’re very proud of that. The programs we deliver have been very successful in the communities.

There may be some issues that we may be tackling, but it’s all workable within the three campuses. Three campuses are working together to remedy the situation.

I had a chance to look over a bit more Hansard here. I want to go back to this. You know, these things just don’t go away just because we decide to sweep them under the carpet.

The concession agreement was signed on September 28. We found out November 27 — two months later. Now, the Premier said we didn’t ask the right question. We didn’t say, “Did you sign the concession agreement in the last government?” We weren’t that direct.

Here’s a quote from Hansard, again on October 19. This is Mr. Ramsay: “Are we going to be able to see the concession agreement? Are we going to be able to see the contracts that have been signed? What has been signed?” He says: “What has been signed?”

This is a month before we found out the concession agreement was signed. Mr. Roland comes back: “I’m going to commit to you and Members of this Assembly to share the information that is necessary to make sure we make good decisions for the residents of the Northwest Territories.”

I have to ask again: on October 19, when the Premier — whether he was assigned portfolios or not; I don’t care. He was in the last cabinet. He must have known that the concession agreement had been signed. When he was asked that very direct question — “What has been signed?” — why did he not offer up to this government that the concession agreement had already been signed, significantly committing this government to all the liability we’re now talking about?

The Member again quotes the Hansard from October 19, the first day we had oral questions in the 16th Legislative Assembly.

Most of us around the table — at least from this side of the House, because I had not assigned portfolios — were expecting a light day as was past practice of new governments. But I ended up taking questions from across the delivery of programs and services by the Government of the Northwest Territories.

As the Member has quoted, I committed to providing the necessary information that is now in the hands of Members. Do we want to relive the past? I committed to stuff. I provided that. What more does the Member want from myself? I should be careful asking that question. I have ideas, and I think I know where this is going. But the fact is, what I’ve committed to, I’ve delivered.

I’m interested to know what the Premier thinks I’m looking for. He was only elected as the Premier a short few months ago, and

I was certainly on the record in telling him that I did support him. I still support him. I don’t see a lot of other options sitting over there for Premier. I’d like to work with him. I’m being honest here. I’d like to work with him.

But the fact of the matter is that we need transparency. And I believe the Premier…. You know, as I said, you can’t sweep these things under the carpet. I believe the Premier knew full well what we were looking for that day, and he didn’t have the guts to tell us the concession agreement had been signed.

Did the Premier understand what we were getting at that day? That’s what I’d like to ask.

: I guess I’ll have to apologize. No, I didn’t get the gist of what was happening. I was basking in the glow of just being named the tenth Premier of the Northwest Territories. I wasn’t expecting any questions that would require a lot of background detail. In fact, I stood here — and I didn’t have the updated notes from all the departments — and responded to all the questions that were put before me. I think we used up almost a whole question period, in fact.

I had Members saying good job for not being given an opportunity to know where Members were coming from or to get the background. I responded to questions with information that I had off the top of my head as to where things were, still in, I guess, the limelight of being named Premier of the Northwest Territories.

So for the record, I did not look at the fact that “Okay, they’re looking for what the previous government had signed off days before the election.” No, I didn't. It’s very clear now, as has been pointed out, that it is a very big concern.

I've tried to state, for the record, the information — the critical information that we needed as the Legislative Assembly, even this Assembly — was out there in the public, because questions had been asked about that of the previous government.

Once I knew exactly what Members wanted, I committed to it, and I've delivered upon it. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, two motions were passed in the 15th Assembly. I believe they

were unanimously passed by the Regular Members of this House.

The Premier had to have known that there were concerns on this side of the House with the Deh Cho Bridge project. It has been widely publicized that there were questions and concerns.

The fact that he'd had a chance to think, for I don't know how many months, he might be the Premier,

and with headlines written for months in advance that he was going to be the Premier, I can't help it if he didn't assign that cabinet portfolio. But that was his choice.

Let’s go on to another serious beef. Let’s go on to December 31st . December 31st was the date by

which the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation had to comply with certain things that needed to be done. The equity and different pieces of their side of the commitment had to be put in place by December 31st .

Somebody made a decision to extend that deadline to January 31st . Who made that decision? Thank

you.

Mr. Speaker, the deadline of December 31st was in place. The loan guarantee

was put in place, with our government backstopping that loan guarantee with TD Bank — TD Securities, to be correct.

They had a 30-day provision before calling that loan. The concession agreement, as I was informed by department officials, also had a 30-day provision built into it. That's what we were waiting for, to see if the bridge corporation would come up with the equity and come up with a lending agreement and all of the pieces that needed to be put in place for this to proceed.

Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Just to confirm: even in light of the fact that the Premier knew how many concerns there were about this process and this project, a significant deadline of December 31st came and went. And a decision was made on that side of the House to extend that deadline to January 31st without any consultation or awareness

on this side of the House.

Again, after the fact, we got a phone call. After January 31st had passed, we get a phone call. We

were told that shareholders have changed and that the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation has met their requirements.

Somebody made a decision in spite of…. There was an opportunity on December 31st to change the

course of this project, but the Premier made an extension to January 31st . Did he alone make that

decision?