Thank you. I find it highly convenient that the government would waive the requirement to give Members at least 14 days’ notice regarding the indemnity the day before the concession agreement was signed and I’d like to ask the Minister who ultimately is going to take responsibility for that happening. Thank you.

Thank you. The Member knows I’m in a difficult situation. He’s asking me to second guess the decision of the previous government, previous Cabinet and the Minister of the day. I’m not willing to do that. Mr. Speaker, the decisions were made, I can’t look through a lens of hindsight and say why, why, and this is why, give rationale. The practice was followed, no rules were broken, we’ve been audited twice now and I should point out we are audited every year for this project by the Auditor General for the financial budgets. Never has there been a concern of any rules being broken and it’s also not fair for me to be trying to explain for other Ministers, but that’s the reality. Thank you.

Thank you. It is a difficult position to be in, but some of my colleagues across the way were there when these decisions were made. The decision was made to change the regs the day before the concession agreement was done, which, for all intents and purposes, meant that the former government, the previous government was fully intent on getting this project done despite anything else. They wanted it done, they got it done, Mr. Speaker. What I can talk about today and I can ask the Minister this question: where does the responsibility lie for a February 2008 decision of Cabinet to change the regulations once again allowing for an indemnity in the lender protection agreement in favour of the trustee and the lenders? Whose responsibility is that, Mr. Speaker? That’s this government. Thank you.

There have been two occasions within the life of this project that the indemnity requirements have been waived. It was as per the FAA rules. All protocol was followed. The

Member is insinuating it was done because there was a desire to ram this project through. It was done because there was a need to move forward, decisions needed to be made and it’s no different than any other time that these rules were waived. It’s been done at least 20 times since 1999, Mr. Speaker. So if the Member thinks or is insinuating we did something different, this is standard practice. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s also not every day that the government puts close to $200 million of taxpayers’ money squarely at risk. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to get back to the question of responsibility and accountability. Now, in February of 2008, the regulations were amended once again, and again I’m going to ask the question, who is going to take responsibility for those regulations being amended to again put us at further risk, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member has raised this issue a number of times in the past and, in fact, again, questioning this government about a previous government decision on what’s to be happening. Clearly it’s laid out in the Financial Administration Act. There is process to request indemnification in this process clearly laid out and Members are aware of that. So that process was done and it’s the FMB that votes on any of those decisions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d just like to follow up perhaps with the Premier. I’ve heard some distressing remarks here. I find the Auditor General’s remarks and report here quite distressing. I heard the Minister of Transportation say we followed the rules. In fact, Mr. Speaker, they didn’t do that. They changed the rules, not once but twice and the second time was...

Thank you, Mr. Roland. What is your point of order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on 23(h), that the Member in his statement and line of questioning is making allegations that in fact the government has broken rules in this Legislative Assembly and I would raise the fact that though a process was engaged, he’s referring to in

fact Ministers or a Minister has broken, and suggested breaking, the rules. In fact, that has not been the case. So I would say that, again, a point of order in the fact that he’s having debate and making allegations against another Member of this House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Roland has risen on a point of order with regard to the comments made by Mr. Bromley. The Chair will take the point of order under advisement and provide a ruling at a later date. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to chuckle, Mr. Speaker, I did not say the word “broken.” I said the word “changed the rules.” I believe the Auditor General has used the word “amended the rules” and I was looking for a synonym that was plain language because I know our public are listening. So if the Premier chooses to interpret that as broken, well that seems to reflect a sensitivity on his part, but in fact, I used the word “changed the rules” and in fact the...

Do you have another question, Mr. Bromley?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do have another question. I’m wondering, Mr. Speaker, how is it possible that this government can amend the rules rather than follow the rules and choose to avoid requirements that are in law in terms of engineering and so on in making a decision to go forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The fact that this process that the Member is questioning has been used since 1999 and is in fact part of documents that are available to the public on indemnifications, that indemnification to the exemption of regulations used, and they are public, a process used since 1999. So this wasn’t done for a project specific to this for avoiding rules. It is something that’s in place and, in fact, I believe the Finance Minister is working on an updated formula finance or a Financial Administration Act that would bring more clarity to issues of this nature. Thank you.

The Minister for the Department of Transportation mentioned that the Cabinet or somebody followed standard practice which included, apparently, amending rules. I’m wondering what message this sends out to our public, to our colleagues, to our businesses. Can they simply change the rules or are rules in fact put in place for a reason?

In the Financial Administration Act, Contract Indemnification Exemption Regulations, 1(1)(a), “contract or an agreement that contains an indemnity by the Government of the Northwest Territories is exempt

from the operation of Section 66 to Section 67.2 of the act where the indemnity is made in favour of…” And there’s quite a list of these; almost 20 since 1999. Things like for the Tlicho Government. Things like directors and officers of the Canadian Blood Agency and members of the Scientific Advisory Committee established by the Canadian Blood Agency. “(f) All-State Insurance Company of Canada in respect of claims made by individuals or estates alleging abuse in another case; (g) persons who on behalf of the government in the instance of the Government of the Northwest Territories and in respect of a third party providing accounting or management services or act as a receiver, receiver manager, or liquidator.” So there’s quite a list of things that this is done for in the history of the Government of the Northwest Territories.

I would simply note that the Auditor General has observed that these amendments were made to allow for the indemnity to be changed and that some of the existing regulatory requirements, including the need to give 14 days’ notice for change, this is within days if not hours of the event that transpired immediately after that. I have to ask, the amendments that the Premier mentioned, the amendments to the rules on which we base our day-to-day business, when did they occur relative to the decisions to indemnify themselves without letting Members know?

Again, for the life of this government, in February, and part of the report Members were briefed on three occasions of this work that was being done.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Madam Clerk.