Good morning, colleagues. Welcome back to the Chamber. Orders of the day. Item 2, Ministers’ statements. The honourable Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bob McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, the Mackenzie Gas Project has the potential to create substantial economic benefits for the people of the Northwest Territories, helping us to make real progress towards this Assembly’s goal of a diversified northern economy providing opportunities and choices for our residents. As Members of this House are aware, we have reached a key milestone in the regulatory review of the project. On December 16, 2010, the National Energy Board released their reasons for a decision on the Mackenzie Gas Project, concluding that the project is in the public interest and should be built. We anticipate that the federal government will approve this decision in the near future.

This brings us closer to building the Mackenzie Valley Gas Project than ever before. When the pipeline is built, the Northwest Territories has a great opportunity to showcase the sustainable development potential of our Territory, to grow the economy of the Northwest Territories and Canada, and contribute to efforts geared towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing our dependence on diesel fuels.

The National Energy Board attached 264 conditions to the approval of the Mackenzie Gas Project in areas such as engineering, safety and environmental protection. A number of these recommendations will require active participation by the Government of the Northwest Territories to ensure these objectives are met.

The Government of the Northwest Territories support for the Mackenzie Gas Project includes a

number of strategic objectives all aimed at building a prosperous economy and minimizing any possible negative impacts to our residents, communities and the environment. This is consistent with our plan to maximize the benefits of development, as outlined in the government’s strategic plan. As such, we agreed to support the Mackenzie Gas Project provided that the construction and operation of the project is undertaken in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner, that Northwest Territories residents and businesses will benefit from this development over time, and that the project is undertaken in a way that encourages exploration and development of the basin. I am happy to report that all three objectives have been reflected in the National Energy Board conditions for approval.

The National Energy Board requires the project proponents to file an updated cost estimate and report on their decision to build the pipeline by December 31, 2013, and that actual construction of the Mackenzie Gas must begin no later than 2015. These time frames will help us ensure that the people and businesses of the Northwest Territories are prepared to take advantage of the unprecedented opportunities that this project and related activities the project will bring.

Now that the major socio-economic and environmental regulatory reviews for the Mackenzie Gas Project are finished, we are closer than ever before to bringing this project to life. For the past few years the Government of the Northwest Territories has made significant investments in preparing Northwest Territories residents and communities for the eventuality of the Mackenzie Gas Project. These investments have yielded tremendous results.

The Government of the Northwest Territories’ policies and positions in relation to the Mackenzie Gas Project during the Joint Review Panel and National Energy Board hearings were developed efficiently and effectively. Comprehensive information related to the Mackenzie Gas Project was consistently communicated to various audiences throughout the Northwest Territories and we have developed excellent relationships with all project stakeholders.

While we are happy with the progress made, we also acknowledge that a lot of work remains to be

done on this project before a decision to construct can be made by the proponents.

From this point forward, the Government of the Northwest Territories will be working on the implementation of the commitments made and the joint government response to the Joint Review Panel report, responding to conditions provided by the National Energy Board and their reasons for decision, and preparing for the coordination and processing of the many permits that will be required prior to a decision to construct.

We need the economic support of the federal government and the project proponents to move this project forward and make it a reality. The Government of the Northwest Territories is committed to working with all parties to bring this vital project to the next level and we call on the federal government to join us in facilitating this nation-building project for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my statement by emphasizing, once again, that the construction and operation of the Mackenzie Gas Project in an environmentally and socially responsible way will generate tremendous long-term benefits for the residents of the Northwest Territories and for Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Later today I will be tabling the Government of the Northwest Territories response to the Standing Committee on Social Programs report on the review of the Child and Family Services Act. The act is a key piece of legislation that regulates many of our Territory’s programs and services for children.

The current act represents and speaks to this government’s values and beliefs regarding children. I believe the Standing Committee report focuses on the issue of enhancing supports to children, and their families and communities. I am pleased that the recommendations support and enhance the extensive consultation undertaken in developing the act. While the recommendations show there is room for improvement in how we deliver services, they also confirm that the act is still very much relevant.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the standing committee on the work they did as well as to all of the participants. Health and Social Services staff that accompanied the standing committee on their tour have commented how

heartfelt and sometimes painful the participants’ presentations were. I commend the people that came forward to speak, for their honesty and their courage. In addition, I would like to thank all the members and the staff of the standing committee for working with Health and Social Services staff and allowing them to be part of the process.

Mr. Speaker, overall, we support the recommendations. They will improve services to children, which is the heart of the matter. The focus on supporting families and increasing community involvement to avoid children coming into care is particularly important. This is one of the priorities in the Health and Social Services action plan, A Foundation for Change, where we are committed to improving services for children in care.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of the Northwest Territories has responded positively to the majority of the recommendations. Some recommendations will require additional funding and some will require a review and analysis of the legislation. The Department of Health and Social Services is planning on moving forward immediately on 22 recommendations that are within its mandate and do not require additional financial or human resources to implement.

The full response of the government outlines which recommendations are ready to move forward and which will require additional support or funding. Mr. Speaker, where additional resources are required, these recommendations will have to be advanced through the regular GNWT business planning process and be decided along with other competing GNWT priorities at that time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to provide Members and the public with an update on the Deh Cho Bridge.

Construction has reached a key milestone with the launch of the truss, a key component of the bridge superstructure. The truss is a continuous steel assembly that connects each of the piers and will eventually carry the concrete deck panels and asphalt driving surface. Launching of the truss is the process of assembling the steel members onshore and then pushing them in a continuous line out from the shore to span the piers. Once the truss is in place the contractor will erect the two towers, string the massive cables that will support the centre span and install the prefabricated deck panels. It is expected that the north side superstructure will be completed by spring breakup.

The centre span and the south side truss will be assembled and launched in the summer. I encourage everyone to visit the Deh Cho Bridge website to track the progress of the final phase of construction.

Mr. Speaker, there was a six-week delay in the delivery of critical bridge components that, coupled with the timing of the ice breakup, has caused the contractor to look for ways of saving time. We expect a revised schedule at the end of February, once additional information is known from the truss launch that is currently underway. The contractor is currently making good progress, with the truss now resting on the second permanent pier. It is expected that construction materials, including the steel truss, towers and concrete deck panels, will be on site prior to the spring breakup. This will facilitate the timely re-engagement in the work once the river is clear of ice, and we will continue to plan and work towards a November 2011 completion date.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation recently released the Levelton Report. This is an audit of the work completed prior to the GNWT assuming control of the project. The report is available on the Deh Cho Bridge website and the Levelton Report presented 14 findings and recommendations. In response, the department, in consultation with the project management team, has developed a comprehensive action plan. Almost half of the items are now resolved and the remaining are underway. The work underway includes:

•

completion of a design continuity check to

ensure the input and the modifications from the three official engineers of record for the project is coordinated;

•

remediation of the scour rock protection at the base of the piers;

•

completion of an in-situ testing and inspection of the bridge components produced by ATCON that were not subject to a consistent quality control program;

•

inspection and, if required, repair of a minor cavity that may exist on the top of Pier 3 South.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure everyone that all of the issues that have been identified by the Levelton audit will be addressed without affecting the safety or integrity of the bridge or the progress of construction, and we will have sufficient funds in the project security account to cover the remedial work.

Mr. Speaker, I also note that the Auditor General of Canada is conducting her midpoint performance audit of the Deh Cho Bridge Project, which will be made available soon. The audit was requested by the Members of the Legislative Assembly. The Department of Transportation and other GNWT officials cooperated fully with the Office of the

Auditor General and provided her all the documents and details requested to ensure access to all relevant information.

I hope we can finally concentrate on the prize at hand: the opening of the Deh Cho Bridge. This will be an inspiring structure that will be an icon for generations to come. Thank you. Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Item 3, Members’ statements. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Dene people and their leaders are feeling very under-represented by this government with respect to the Premier signing the agreement-in-principle on lands and resources. Mr. Speaker, whose land are we talking about? The original landowners for most of this great Territory are Dene. In the Akaitcho Territory, land claim negotiations with the federal government are far from being settled and yet this government, with the federal government support, wants to take control of Dene land and resources before these negotiations to be completed. Mr. Speaker, yes, it comes with a promise: we will give you back some of the land when you complete your negotiations with the federal government.

Mr. Speaker, the track record of such promises to the Dene is not good. This promise does not sit well with the Dene leadership in Tu Nedhe and Akaitcho. The Akaitcho said that once things are signed off, it is very difficult to delete or add to the final agreement. No wonder, Mr. Speaker. When this government, who sits on land claim negotiation tables, the leaders in Tu Nedhe and elsewhere tell me that the GNWT negotiators are harder to make progress with than the federal government negotiators. It will get even worse as this government takes control of the land and resources in the regions with unsettled land claims.

Mr. Speaker, the GNWT trying to achieve devolution is not the problem as long as it’s with the Aboriginal governments. The land and resources of the Northwest Territories should be managed by our own governments. We can do a better job than is being done now. The problem is that this government is not including all of the citizens in this work, only some.

Mr. Speaker, we see that most Aboriginal governments, from one end of the Territory to the other, feel left out. They are not signing the AIP. Even in regions with settled land claims, most Aboriginal leaders refuse to sign the AIP. They, too,

say it is not a good deal for them and the people they represent. There are too many uncertainties.

I have not listed all the reasons, Mr. Speaker, but here are a few:

Mr. Beaulieu, your time for your Member’s statements has expired.

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

---Unanimous consent granted

Mr. Speaker, this AIP has damaged relationships between Aboriginal, territorial and federal governments; the federal resource revenue is much larger; the share of federal resource revenue is much larger than both the Aboriginal and territorial governments’ share.

Our cost of regulating development could easily be much more than the federal government will transfer to pay for it. So in the future we as a GNWT and the Aboriginal governments could be facing costs that we cannot cover. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to speak about the issue of dredging in the Hay River.

Mr. Speaker, as you well know, Hay River has a long history as a transportation hub. Hay River is located where it is today due to the waterways that it sits on: the south shore of Great Slave Lake and at the mouth of the Hay River. Mr. Speaker, the federal government used to play a very large role and had a large presence in Hay River with their Public Works dredging operations, and then quite a number of years back they held a big auction sale. They sold all their barges, all their dredges, all their floats, all their equipment and turned the property over either to the territorial government or the Town of Hay River. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, no one has taken responsibility for the dredging program and this plays havoc with getting into the harbour in Hay River.

Hay River has been the starting point of the tug and barge operation, which carries freight down the Mackenzie River and to points east and west beyond. The Canadian Coast Guard has a large installation in Hay River and brings their large ships in and out. The commercial fishermen have boats, which mean that they need access to the Hay River harbour. Recreational boaters need access to the harbour.

Mr. Speaker, the island that is growing in the mouth of the Hay River is also a concern for the spring flooding that occurs. As that island grows, it has an impact on where the water can go when the Hay River floods.

For all of these reasons, it is extremely important that somebody is on top of the issue of dredging the mouth of the Hay River. Mr. Speaker, there may be consultations going on, there may be funding available, there may be things that I’m not aware of, but people in Hay River are extremely concerned about this. So today I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation questions about what is the role of this government and the Department of Transportation in ensuring that we continue to have a clear waterway to access the harbour in Hay River and that this island that is building used to be called Seagull Island when it was a lot smaller -- I don’t know what it’s going to be called now -- you can practically walk halfway to Fort Providence now without getting wet.

Anyway, it’s a real concern and it’s a real problem. So I’m going to have questions today for the Minister of Transportation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week I was lucky enough to witness a little bit of history, a big piece of history for the NWT. Of course, I refer to the signing of the devolution agreement-in-principle last Wednesday. I fully support the principle of devolution and I believe that it was right to sign the agreement, but I am deeply troubled by the deep divide between the GNWT and the Aboriginal governments that has resulted from this event.

This relationship break has been building for some time, Mr. Speaker, and hindsight is 20/20, but we can now see that the Premier has failed with the Regional Leaders’ Forum process. He’s failed to adequately communicate with NWT residents about the AIP. We’re left with uninformed opinions, opposing views, entrenched positions and mistrust all across the Territory. Residents and community leaders are searching for the facts, real and valid info, wanting to be reassured, to find something they can believe in. I think our people are now dazed and confused, to quote a movie title from 1993. They don’t know who to believe and they’re looking for the real answers.

Earlier this week the Premier was asked about his and the government’s plans to explain the AIP and the next steps in devolution to NWT residents. From his answers, it seems that there will be letters

to regional leaders, an info bulletin mailed out to NWT households, and advertising and info through the media. I have major concerns about this communication plan. History has proven to us that these tactics do not work.

Mr. Menicoche suggested the other day that the Premier needs to take this issue on the road, that his constituents want face-to-face communication. I could not agree more with this approach. That’s what’s missing in the Premier’s plan: the personal element. There needs to be conversation with our residents, not at them. There needs to be a travelling road show on devolution and the AIP to every one of our 33 communities. Sure, it’s a big job, a time-consuming job, but if the Premier truly believes that all parties should be at the devolution negotiations table and he truly desires to fix these broken relationships to get us out of the mess we’re in, then he will put a better communication plan in motion and he will reach out in person to our residents. He cannot wait for invitations, a part of the plan he described the other day, to go and visit leaders and communities. He must actively pursue contact with our residents eye to eye.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would like to talk about the devolution process and the lack of coordination, consultation and respect that our Aboriginal leadership should get from a government-to-government relationship.

The Gwich’in Tribal Council submitted a letter dated April 19

th

last year to the government on issues that

they felt had to be discussed prior to a devolution agreement-in-principle going forward. The agreement was signed, as we know, last September, with no consultation and now I’ve received a letter from the Premier to Mr. Nerysoo, some seven months after they received the letter, outlining their concerns and issues that they felt had to be addressed through the devolution process.

Consultation, negotiations and involvement mean sitting at a table and being full participants in those negotiations, not simply observers sitting on the sidelines or being consulted every once in awhile. I think it’s fundamental to improve the relationship between the Government of the Northwest Territories and its Aboriginal leaders by way of formulating a meeting ASAP, even on this weekend or whatever is coming up, to find a way to improve that relationship.

The relationship between the Aboriginal leaders and the Aboriginal communities in the Northwest

Territories is at an all-time low in the history of the Northwest Territories and its political development. I believe this government has done more harm to that relationship through this agreement-in-principle and trying to push something forward for the sake of trying to come up with an agreement without really understanding the implications and effects on the people of the Northwest Territories and the Aboriginal leadership.

At the appropriate time I will be having questions for the Premier regarding his correspondence between himself and Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The people of Norman Wells were in the dark on December 21

st

not just because the sun went down

early that day but because the town lost power around 5:00 p.m. and it was out for almost three hours. The backup generators did not come on.

NTPC dispatched a crew from Fort Simpson but it did not arrive in time. Where was our government?

It was 30 below and the town nearly faced a state of emergency. Where was our government?

Imperial Oil supplied power to Norman Wells and was having problems with its turbine. Imperial Oil has three turbines to support its operations. On December 21

st

only one was working and it failed.

Where was our government?

If the power had stayed out any longer, Imperial would have shut down the town’s gas line to maintain its oilfield and not the town’s. People were left without heat and electricity. The mayor said, in that situation people would have been evacuated.

Pretty soon there won’t be any turbines working in Norman Wells. In October Imperial announced that it will stop supplying gas to the town in 2014. Norman Wells is one of those communities that want to be linked to the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline but the earliest that could happen is 2018, we hope.

There are some big problems in the way we supply energy to the Sahtu, an area we have some of the greatest potential. The town has met to discuss some of the options for a way forward. Why wasn’t NTPC at this meeting? Where was the federal government that owns one-third of this oilfield and scoops millions and millions of royalties every year? Where were our governments?

The people of my region want to know what is being done to make sure they’re not ever left in the dark. Can the real governments please stand up and help my people, not only take, take, take, take? Where is our government?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to speak today about the Deh Cho Bridge Project. I appreciate the Minister’s statement here earlier today.

I was happy to see the Finance Minister mention that Regular Members will be getting an update from Minister Michael McLeod later in this session. I look forward to seeing that. I’m also looking forward to Auditor General Sheila Fraser’s report on the bridge project, which should be tabled in this House in four weeks’ time. I want to thank the Minister of Transportation and his department for all the work that they’re putting into ensuring that the project remains on time and on budget.

In anything we do in life, we should take lessons, grow, and learn from mistakes that we’ve made. I am still very troubled about how the former Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, probably with our blessing, allowed ATCON to take on a $165 million contract 3,000 miles away from its home base and not be bonded to do the work. I wonder how that’s even possible.

What we found out is that, yes, we had a $13 million guarantee from the Bank of Nova Scotia which, after ATCON entered into receivership, was made good by the Government of New Brunswick on the back of the taxpayer in New Brunswick. A construction audit was conducted by Levelton and it speaks to deficiencies in the work performed by ATCON. The question is whether the $13 million will cover the cost of the needed repairs.

I must also state, for the record, that even though Members had asked to see the report, it was posted on the department’s website and technical briefings were conducted with the media in the absence of any real briefing or update for Regular Members. I should not have to find out the report is available on-line from the local media; it should have been given to Regular Members before being posted on the department’s website.

I just want to make sure that we have guarantees in place with the current contractor, Ruskin, to ensure they are adequately bonded to do the remainder of the work. Also given the fact that there have been recent delays and the Minister states quite clearly in his statement earlier today that the contractor is looking at bringing forward a revised schedule sometime by the end of February, well, when I read between the lines, it means more time. In a mega-infrastructure project like the Deh Cho Bridge, time is obviously money. I want some assurances from the Minister that delays and cost overruns will not

fall on the taxpayer here in the Northwest Territories.

I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

---Unanimous consent granted

I want some assurances what cost overruns will fall on the taxpayer here in the NWT, and I also want to understand why Regular Members haven’t seen a copy of the contract between Ruskin and whoever it’s with -- the Government of the Northwest Territories or maybe the former Deh Cho Bridge Corporation -- how that works, what our liabilities are in that contract, what are eligible cost overruns. I’ll be asking the Minister for that later today.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Early investments in the health and well-being of mothers and children through nurse-family programs pays huge benefits down through the years. Good work is underway in four communities through the Healthy Families Program at the Department of Health and Social Services and I look forward to hearing more details on any expansion to be proposed in this year’s budget.

Nurse-family programs focus on improving prenatal health, reducing child abuse and enhancing family functioning in the first two years of the child’s life. Unlike many mental health, substance abuse and crime prevention programs, nurse-family programs help first-time mothers become effective parents.

Results of this support are enormous, as demonstrated in a growing number of studies and case assessments. In studies of low-income mothers in U.S. cities the nurse-visited women smoked 25 percent fewer cigarettes during pregnancy, had fewer kidney infections and produced heavier babies. Mothers and children had better diets and there were 80 percent fewer cases of child abuse and neglect. By age 15 the children had fewer criminal convictions, by two-thirds. They also had 60 percent fewer sexual partners, smoked almost one-third fewer cigarettes, and consumed alcohol on less than half the days of the control group.

After 15 years, poor, unmarried women still showed major benefits. They had fewer subsequent pregnancies, fewer months on income support, there was an 80 percent reduction in the child abuse again, a major reduction in maternal misbehaviour due to alcohol and drug abuse, and 70 percent fewer arrests. The number of days mothers were in the hospital for injuries dropped by

80 percent. By age six, children had fewer behavioural and mental health problems, grades were better, they were using less tobacco, alcohol or street drugs. Each study showed the most significant improvements were seen in high-risk, poor families.

This type of program is exactly what was recommended by the Child and Family Services Act review for every NWT community. It’s the kind of integrated model being called for in the No Place for Poverty workshop recommendations. It’s about the integrated cross-government approach we must take to prevent problems, rather than spending on the bottomless pit of battling symptoms.

I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.

---Unanimous consent granted

The current delivery of the Healthy Families Program in four communities has been endorsed by all and provides the basis for rolling this program out across the Territory. We know dollars are short, but the demonstrated, almost miraculous, benefits of nurse-family programs shows this is where we should be staking our resources. Our existing small community nursing station delivery model and our social services Healthy Families programs provides the basis on which to build.

I will be pushing for maximum emphasis on this approach and will be asking the Minister questions on how to pursue this to the fullest.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last October there was a lot of talk about respite services in the Northwest Territories. We had a gallery full of people who were very concerned about the future of the YACL and their delivery of respite services.

As a result of that -- I believe that the Minister and her department actually heard what the people had to say -- the Minister is moving forward with the development of a comprehensive territory-wide respite program, which I think is fantastic. To that end, the department is holding regional respite care focus groups over the next couple of months, through February, that are going to involve the department and stakeholders and NGOs and people that have children that are in respite. I think that’s a great approach and I hope that information is going to be used in the development of this territory-wide respite program.

I do have one concern and that is the current program in Yellowknife. The development of a respite program is not going to be done by the end of March. We’re still going to need respite services while that program is being developed. I understand that the Minister has been in touch with the families in Yellowknife, as it gave them some assurances that they would continue to receive respite services over the 2011-2012 fiscal year as the department moves forward with the development of this comprehensive respite program. I think that’s great. The families needed to hear that. They needed to know that there’s some certainty there. But I don’t know fully what that certainty means. Later today I will be asking the Minister some questions on what that means for the 2011-12 fiscal year. Does it mean that those 29 families in Yellowknife can expect to receive respite services from the Yellowknife Association for Community Living?

The Yellowknife Association for Community Living has been successful. They have demonstrated that they can provide high quality respite services. Until we do have a territorial respite program, which may change how we deliver respite throughout the Northwest Territories, can we get some assurances that YACL will continue to provide during the 2011-12 fiscal year?

Just for the record, in the development of a comprehensive territorial respite program, my thoughts are we need a program that is flexible, that will address the realities that communities, towns and cities are different and our delivery mechanisms are going to need to be different in those communities. So as the Minister moves forward, my plug is for, obviously, an incredibly flexible program that meets the needs of our residents regardless of where they live and one program does not fit all. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday Canada’s most trusted contractor was here in Yellowknife speaking at a construction conference. His name, I’m sure no stranger to most, is Mike Holmes. He raised many topics of interest in his talk, but one area that was of significant interest to me, which I’ve raised in this very House, is consumer protection for new homeowners.

New homeowners, Mr. Speaker, need consumer protection and it is a growing concern in my constituency, across the North and even in Canada. To be direct, a new home buyer is left to the goodwill of the person they are buying their new

home from. Whether it is a new home bought from a contractor or it is a home being sold to them from another family, the only warranty these people often receive is often joked about in the industry, which is called taillight warranty. When those taillights disappear, that’s when the warranty disappears. As Mike Holmes put it, a person can purchase a car, or even a refrigerator or a coffeemaker today and they receive some level of consumer protection through a warranty. The funny thing is they have better consumer rights than someone buying a new home.

Imagine, Mr. Speaker, a family buying a new home or even just a used home from another family, and that family, in essence, is risking everything they have with both their finances and their dreams and hopes on what most people in the industry describe as a one-time, 15-minute walk-through. They have no guarantees on anything that their new home is built right or that nothing has been covered up for a quick sale to get it out there.

Sadly, this government has no interest to stand behind our constituents or people of the North. I’ve raised this matter to the Minister of MACA, and the department feels that if no one is complaining, then they don’t have an interest on this subject. Why does this government need to wait for a train wreck before it takes interest on a particular issue?

I even went up to Mike Holmes after his talk and explained that this government has little interest on this particular subject. He was shocked when I told him this, as I continue to be shocked, because good families are put in a risky position if a dangerous situation happens and no one is there to protect them. Our government abandons them. I often wonder why the families in Ontario and even Alberta are better concerned or more concerned than our government takes towards our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, this government could do something today. First, it could agree to take action to ensure that there is protection for families out there, to ensure that they are not unnecessarily put at risk. Mr. Speaker, the Minister would be shocked to know that even industry would welcome this: honest safeguards to protect family and people in the industry. Mr. Speaker, people don’t need to get stuck with lemons. I will have questions for the Minister of MACA later today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I, too, attended the Northern Construction Tradeshow yesterday at lunchtime. As Mr. Hawkins had indicated, Mr. Holmes from Holmes on Homes was in attendance and gave a speech there. I really

didn’t go there for the speech. I actually went there, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate a niece of mine, Ms. Tyra Moses, who got an award for top marks in the second and third-year electrical trade program.

However, the speech did catch my attention, Mr. Speaker. He spoke on many topics, and his experiences and ideas on providing safe and reliable homes to the public were refreshing. It’s true for any of the shows that I’ve watched and I’m sure of our public as well.

One issue that is becoming necessary and even standard in southern construction is mould-free housing construction. In my constituency, as I travel and visit, mould in their homes is raised with me quite often. I have been in the homes and saw the extent of these issues. Constituent homeowners want solutions, Mr. Speaker. The NWT Housing Corporation has several initiatives to combat the mould issues. However, I have learned that we can in future prevent this by building mould-free homes with mould-free materials and construction techniques.

It was said, as well, that mould-free construction will not necessarily impact the cost of construction. So I ask the Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation to begin investigating this and work towards making it a policy of our Government of the Northwest Territories to have mould-free construction in any new home construction. Our constituents and clients deserve safe and reliable homes. The people know that the mould issues are affecting the health of themselves and their children. I will raise this issue with the Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation during question period. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery. Item 6, acknowledgements. Item 7, oral questions. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Health and Social Services. I just want to start by noting that the Standing Committee on Social Programs did have the courtesy of sharing with the Minister our draft report on the review of the Child and Family Services Act, and we were pleased to do so. I want to preface my questions by noting that it would have been great to see the department’s response to it before it was tabled today. But not having seen it, when is the Minister proposing to get the Healthy Families Program into every community in the Northwest Territories? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a program that we support and we agree with the Members that it does benefit and we would like to see them expanded as the financial resources permit. Thank you.

I hate to waste questions like this, Mr. Speaker. Sorry. I hate to waste questions like this. I asked what the Minister is proposing, not what she’d like to see. I wonder if I could get that answered. And while we’re at it, has there been evaluation of the existing Healthy Families programs? Mahsi.

I do appreciate the Member’s question and I don’t mean to be in any way disrespectful. I just want to simply state that I agree with the Member and we are aware and we share the view that early intervention and working with children and families does help in many different ways, as the Member stated, and it has been a focus of the government to work in those programs. The Member is also aware that the Health and Social Services budget is under pressure, as are all others. We are having to work with a 3 percent growth in the budget, which is almost standstill. So my answer to the Member is that we look to -- and I would like to -- expand the programs, but we can only do that to the extent that the resources are available. Thank you.

Unfortunately, my questions are accumulating here, Mr. Speaker. I’m just not getting answers. I asked, had an evaluation been done of the existing programs. I asked what the Minister is proposing. Apparently, there is a document to be tabled today. Supposedly, the Minister knows that if she’s proposing to do nothing, I need to know that, Mr. Speaker. I will add a third question. Given that major benefits from programs such as the Healthy Families accrue to the Department of Justice, ECE and other departments, including Health and Social Services to get us out from these budget pressures we’re under, this is clearly profitable, preventative investments in people that saves our budget, Mr. Speaker. What is this Minister doing to get those departments involved in supporting these programs? I wouldn’t mind an answer to all three questions, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

As I stated in the opening statement, there were 72 recommendations to CFSA. We are making this report available a month sooner than required because we do appreciate that Members want to take a look at that. As I stated, we are supportive of the majority of the recommendations. We are moving immediately on 22 and there are others that we support but need legislation change and working with other departments. We do provide a detailed response to

those recommendations. I do believe we have ample time to review those. The issue that the Member raised, yes, we are working with other departments to advance those. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Your final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why don’t I get a good feeling here, Mr. Speaker? I guess, if I can try and ask a point-blank question here: would the Minister agree that despite an entire section devoted to prevention, and possibly the highest priority in our report, am I to conclude from the Minister’s remarks that in fact there is no expansion planned for the Healthy Families Program?

No, Mr. Speaker. I think the Member should take a look at the responses. We have very positive responses to most of the recommendations. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Premier. I would like to say to the Premier, having been deluged, I guess, with questions a couple of days ago, many differing opinions on the AIP and people telling him what to do and so on, I’d like to know whether or not the Premier is open to making changes to the communications plan that we heard about the other day. Has he considered making any changes, and if he has not to this date, will he consider making changes to be a little more personal in his approach to our residents? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, since responding to questions earlier in the week on the agreement-in-principle, the approach we have looked at we have been revising as we’ve gone forward, taking in the comments made by Members. We are looking towards offering up to go into communities and have a team established that we will be able to go into the communities to explain the AIP, as it is, on top of our communications in Aboriginal languages going into the homes across the North, as well, and on top of that, the householder, as well. We are working on a number of fronts and we’ve revised the letter I said that we would try to get out, and my earlier response to regional leaders, we have changed that letter now and it’s being revised again to offer them an opportunity to meet in the regions with all the chiefs and go into communities as well. Thank you.

I would like to thank the Premier for the response. I am gratified to hear that Members are being heard, that residents are being heard and that there is going to be a change to the approach to getting information out there and educating our residents.

I’d like to ask the Premier, if we are going into communities, and I’d like to state again we need to go to every community. We can’t just hold these meetings in regional centres; every community deserves the right to have a meeting and to hear these explanations. When the Premier and/or his team or a portion of a team goes to a community, what type of community meetings is the Premier planning on holding? Thank you.

We’d be prepared to hold public information meetings with the community, the leadership and residents within the community. It is about trying to get as much information out to people so that they can understand what this document is and what it means as we go forward. Thank you.

Good information to hear and I’m glad to hear that. I would hope that in any meeting, that the government would be open at a community meeting to hearing from both sides, and that if an Aboriginal leader, a regional leader or a community leader wishes to be there to speak to the issue, that they would be able to have the opportunity to do that.

One of the other things that the Premier mentioned is that he is sending a letter to regional leaders to invite them to come back to the process, so to speak. I have to ask myself why would they do that. What can we say to leaders at this point that is going to want them to come back to this table? I guess I need to ask the Premier, and I have to state as well, that I think, to me, the letter is the most formal method of communication that we have. So to the Minister, to the Premier: what is he doing at this point, apart from the letter to regional leaders, to try and mend these broken bridges? Thank you.

I think the language we use here, it sometimes can help inflame the situation that we find ourselves in, to a certain degree. Not all of the regions are in disagreement. We know some are right now planning to hold some of their meetings. We’re in communications with them on a number of fronts around the devolution process and again offer up the meetings. We do have to follow up with a formal process. So there are calls going on to stay in touch and keep in touch with what some of the regions are planning, what they are saying out there or what we are hearing. But we will follow up formally with the letters, as I stated, with some of the revisions that I mentioned earlier.

As we look towards the future and do what we can within the next number of days and weeks, looking

at trying to schedule those community meetings that we can and get some acceptance of, we’re prepared to go in and have these information meetings so that people will be fully informed as we progress in our work plan as the Government of the Northwest Territories.

I think it is important to also recognize that as we’ve offered up through this whole process that at times there may not be agreement on some of the key issues. Some of the issues raised by some of the leaders as we’ve responded to are matters outside of the devolution of the authorities, right now practices by the federal government. They’re more matters of self-government negotiations or of amending land claims agreements, which this devolution agreement is not intended to do. We have to get that type of information out to the public as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Premier for his statement, I guess. I appreciate the information. I certainly had no intention to inflame. It’s simply a query that has entered into my head and I’m glad to hear the Premier say that there are phone calls going on so there is some personal touch that’s happening with regional leaders. The more of that that happens, the better, in my mind.

One last question, Mr. Speaker, and it has to do with the scheduled meeting for the Northern Leaders’ Forum in March. I wonder if the Premier could advise what the purpose of that meeting is. Thank you.

The Northern Leaders’ Forum is a side table to the regional leaders’ meetings that we had, we established, inviting other participants to be a part of the work we were doing on building a common vision. At our recent meeting we were presented materials from the Inuvialuit and the Metis, as well as the Association of Municipalities, and we are pulling that information together. Our response now is with that material. We’re sending it back to all of the participants, even those that were not there, as they were provided funds to be a part of this and we hope that although they were preoccupied with the days up to the agreement-in-principle, that they’ve got information that they can share or at least provide feedback on the information we have received. The basis of that meeting is to have that response from them as well as the others that did provide a formal response, to look at the next steps as we go forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In regard to my statement, I made reference to a letter that was sent on April 19

th

to the Premier on six

outstanding issues that the Gwich’in felt had to be addressed before they’d come back to the table. It clearly states that the Gwich’in were withdrawing, and also they were withdrawing the support for the signing of the agreement on May 19, 2007, because they felt it did not accommodate them in regard to the areas of concern.

Again, Mr. Speaker, it took almost seven months for the Premier to respond by way of a letter. Again, he commits to a lot in the letter, but it doesn’t really address the six outstanding issues that are mentioned in the letter that was forwarded to the Premier. So I’d like to know when are you going to deal with the six outstanding issues that the president of the Gwich’in Tribal Council put forward in his letter of April 19, 2010.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve already mentioned this letter a number of times in this House by the Member and spoke to the reasons it’s taken so long, apologized for the delay in some of them, but with all the events happening, it was better to respond with a full deck of cards and positions and send those responses out.

In the letter that I sent back to the president of the Gwich’in Tribal Council, we touched on those issues that he raised. In fact, we spoke of the fact that a number of those issues were outside of the agreement-in-principle and would be better dealt with, as I was saying in an earlier response, through other tables and other discussions, or final agreements in other areas such as self-government.

We’ve responded to that letter and I know that the president may not be happy with that response, but it is our position that a number of those issues are outside of the agreement-in-principle. There are a number of issues raised in the letter that we feel are actually a part of the negotiations to go forward. For example, resource revenue sharing, that is part of the agreement-in-principle under Section 12 that talks about having bilaterals with Aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories. So there are a number of areas that we address where we feel we could better deal with those as we go forward. We would work with all the leadership, giving them time to respond to the letters that were sent by the chief negotiators, as well as work on and sit down together to work on a protocol to see us go forward on the AIP. Unfortunately, that fell through at the eleventh hour, but hopefully with those principles that I believe are common to all the

parties, we’ll be able to use that and go forward in the next steps. Thank you.

Again, we ask for input from Aboriginal organizations. They put it in writing, they forward it to the government, we develop a protocol agreement, we have the Aboriginal governments assuming that they were going to have a say in the agreement-in-principle in regard to devolution. Again, that whole process collapsed on itself and I find it kind of odd. Is that a government stalling tactic to not allow the Aboriginal groups to be at the main table during this negotiation and eliminate them from having a real say at the negotiating table?

The Member knows, from his own history as a negotiator, there are times when the main table has participants there from different parties that share that responsibility, and there are times when it’s a team approach and the chief negotiator works with other groups as preparing for the main table so that the messaging is consistent. So we don’t need to go there and debate who has the actual say at the table. There are places in this agreement-in-principle where, in fact, it’s going to be a bilateral discussion between Aboriginal governments and the GNWT. So we’ll, in fact, be at the table across from each other negotiating the final, for example, resource revenue sharing bilateral agreements. There are areas where we’re going to have to work on the jurisdiction and sharing of responsibilities as we go forward in how they would work together where there are private settled lands and there’s the Crown lands that are being transferred and how that integration would work. So there’s that responsibility.

Let’s not forget, from the start of this process from 2001 forward, we’ve had the input from their negotiators, their legal people in the language that is throughout the AIP as it’s signed now. Thank you.

Again, I have to remind the Premier that we do have a legal and constitutional obligation to the land claim governments where the government clearly stipulates that they shall involve the Aboriginal governments in the development and implementation of a northern accord or a devolution agreement. That is on constitutionally protected land claims agreements. But yet, by submitting a letter with six outstanding issues that they wanted to address, which basically states that they are putting forward suggestions on how we can improve the agreement, and also include them in those discussions. So, again, I’d like to ask the Minister exactly why these six items were not taken to the main table of negotiations and put forward in front of the federal government, and why they had to wait seven months for a reply, knowing that

these issues won’t be discussed at the main negotiating table.

Quite clearly -- and I’ve shared this with regional leaders right from the earliest days as we received the letters from the chief negotiators -- there are some matters that have been brought to the table, brought to the negotiation teams, that were outside of the agreement-in-principle.

Let’s go back to what this agreement-in-principle is about. It is about what the federal government is making decisions on today with their present infrastructure, their present regime in place, it is about transferring that existing system over to us and once we have the authority as governments in the North, we will be able to influence and make changes to that regime that better reflect what we want to see as Northerners in that type of regime and legislation. So there is that process that will bring all the bodies back to the table to be a part of this process in dealing with those.

So the matters that the Member talks about in the initial letter -- division of power, responsibility and authority that has not been resolved between the Government of the NWT and Aboriginal governments -- well, chapter 6 sets that process up. The resource revenue sharing part, chapter 12 sets that process up. So this AIP incorporates that we will deal with a number of those key matters.

There are some purely bilateral issues between the federal government and the GNWT when it comes to the human resources and the staff of the federal government becoming staff of the Government of the Northwest Territories and then the new positions that we’d have to go and hire and the contract that’s in place that we’d have to work with, the HR side. That’s purely a bilateral issue with the GNWT.

So there’s a number of facets to this that we have to clearly identify, and that’s why we’re working on bringing the regional leaders back to the table so they can help us in some of that work. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Your final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Also, one of the items in the letter was the whole area of decentralizing government and the concern that they are raising is that it seems all the populated centres are the ones where all the policy analysts are, people that control those decision-making decisions and making them, knowing that those decisions are having effects on Aboriginal people and their traditional lands. I think it’s important to realize that decentralization is one of the issues that also was addressed in those suggestions and yet that’s not being discussed. I’d just like to propose, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Premier maybe he can get his staff to maybe have better contact with

the Gwich’in Tribal Council, because I know that in your cc’s you have a whole bunch of chiefs there that no longer are chiefs in those positions and vacated their positions last spring. So I’d like to know if maybe you can get your department to get out there and maybe know who those leaders really are.

We will continue to update our files on the different elected leaders throughout the Northwest Territories and we will continue to do that as we go forward. Yes, we will focus and make sure we have the right contacts. Of key importance is responding to the person writing the letter originally, and that is the president, and respond to that and go forward on that basis.

Again, as we’ve looked and done this work, it has been inclusive. We have had a seat at the table, whether it is at the bilateral working teams as we presented and even when it was purely a bilateral issue of the GNWT and federal government, we updated all the parties as to the positions and the outcomes of those discussions. We have been at all fronts working to incorporate the groups at the table. In fact, it wasn’t until this opportunity to sign this that some of the positions that are now out there were raised, not in the sense of negotiation positions but of the stance of not agreeing with the signing. For example, in the signed agreement I tabled here, the signatories for this agreement were at one time all in one. It was at the request of the Aboriginal members at the table who said they did not want to have that part of it, because they felt they had to have opportunity to address it at a different stage. That adjustment was made and that’s why the section about coming in whenever they’re ready to come in was put in place.

We’ve adjusted things, as we’ve gone forward, to try to incorporate as many of the changes, but some of the key ones that are being raised are either to be negotiated as we go forward or are outside of the mandate of the agreement-in-principle.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Premier on the AIP. The devolution AIP is a roadmap that sets out the course of negotiations for the final agreement that the final agreement will follow. Five Aboriginal governments have already indicated some portions of the AIP are not in their best interest. Aboriginal governments have reiterated their substantive concerns with the AIP to the GNWT. The Premier wishes to include Aboriginal in the final agreement and if this requires a departure from the existing terms of the AIP to accommodate the interests of

the Aboriginal, will the Premier agree to alter the course that the AIP currently sets for negotiation of the devolution agreement in order to make devolution work? In other words, is the Premier prepared to deviate from the terms of the AIP if that’s what’s required to accommodate the interests of the Aboriginal?

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve been through the process of working up to the AIP. We’ve heard some of the concerns. We’ve tried to address it through, for example, chapter 4, where we talk about protection of Aboriginal rights as concerns about those groups that have land claims and self-government that are in the negotiation process. We’ve incorporated the language in the signed AIP that sets out the protection and the wording and with the input of the representatives of the groups at the table to put in the language that protects Aboriginal rights. Certainly the fact that the Constitution itself stands and we respect all of those rights as we go forward. We’ve incorporated the language. I could go clause by clause to do this, but we’d use up all the time of the Assembly on this. We’ve incorporated the language to try to bring comfort to the groups that we will not take away any rights that are established out there. In fact, through this and chapter 6 we think we can grow together.

As for saying we will alter the agreement that has been signed, that is not the position of the Government of the Northwest Territories. We believe we can accommodate some of the issues as we go forward in setting our mandates for negotiations towards a final agreement in that. Again, that is why it is so important that the groups come back into the tent and join those that have been there and look at a way forward on this.

I’d like to thank the Premier for that answer. I think a deviation of the AIP is needed, but it’s apparent the government is not prepared to do that. According to the history, Aboriginal people are the true landowners of the Northwest Territories. Does the Premier acknowledge that the Aboriginal people are the true landowners and also landowners of the resources in that land?

The Canadian Constitution is clear about the agreements that have been signed and settled, and those that are... In fact, this agreement-in-principle goes clearly even into the areas where there are negotiations ongoing. The fact that both ourselves and the federal government have heard from the groups that are in negotiations, the clause that’s in there that the federal government can come back in and reach into those Crown lands that have been transferred to the GNWT and alter that so that the

groups negotiating aren’t squeezed into a box that has been predetermined. It leaves that open for future negotiations as we go forward.

As the Government of the Northwest Territories, the agreements that have been signed, the language in this agreement-in-principle clearly states that we recognize those rights and authorities that are established.

On January 13, 2011, Aboriginal governments presented a protocol agreement to the Minister. The Premier had made some changes and presented it back to the Aboriginal governments. The Aboriginal governments didn’t accept that. Is the Premier prepared to go back to Aboriginals and seriously consider the protocol agreement that was sent to him in its form on January 13, 2011?

The protocol agreement that we helped in the process -- mind you, we were given a final draft copy late and let’s realize that a protocol is worked on with all partners -- we helped and supported the protocol work of the regional groups. I’d asked at a number of meetings if we would be provided an early draft so that we could respond, if there were concerns with the language that was in there that would not work with us. Unfortunately, we were given a final draft, we had to respond quickly. As I was open with the leaders that I met with and the technical staff that they had that I met with on January 6

th

saying that it was the

last week of January that we were aware that Minister Duncan was coming up and we were planning to work on an agreement-in-principle signing and hopefully we would have the protocol at least initialled by the groups and a way forward. Clearly, the protocol that was written had language in it that said if we signed it, we would not sign an agreement-in-principle, that there needed to be some of the key issues, as they felt, negotiated first; which was the Constitution, which was resource revenue sharing, which was power sharing, which all have their place but have their place in a negotiation process.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to shift gears a little bit and recognizing that the Premier covered some of this in response to Ms. Bisaro, when will the Premier start a communication strategy to begin dialogue with Aboriginal governments and consider their input in the AIP?

We are working at a very fast pace since the signing to begin to put plain language, number one, householder in there and then to have Aboriginal languages do the interpretation, and we’ll provide that to homes across the North as well as through the radio. As well, the communications with the regional leaders, we’re picking up and getting back to them to say

are they ready to sit down with us, and looking at going into communities with information sessions to have all of that information ready.

In the Executive side, devolution, we’re a small team now. We’ve returned much of our money, previous years’, because things were not moving ahead. We’ll have to revamp and look at how we get into those communities with those information sessions so that we can provide that. We’re working at that now. I can’t give you an absolute date but, for example, I’ll be looking at material this weekend so that we can hopefully get something out to the firms that could print this information and get it out to households as soon as possible. The Aboriginal language piece we’re working with Education, Culture and Employment on the language side as well as looking to communities for interpreters that could help us in this work.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I talked about dredging and my questions today are for the Minister of Transportation. Since the federal Department of Public Works vacated their role in Hay River in ensuring that the mouth of the river and the shipping channels in that area were dredged on a regular basis, whose responsibility is that function at this time?

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The responsibility of maintaining navigable waterways is with the federal government.

Since this lack of dredging is impacting industry in Hay River, what role does the Minister see himself in in communicating with the federal government on this situation? Have meetings taken place? Has the Minister met with industry? Has he met with federal counterparts who may have a role to play in this and could help bring some resolve to the situation?

I guess several Ministers could have a role to play in the concern that’s being raised by the Member. The fisheries are being impacted, as was stated in her comments. I guess it could fall under ITI. As a potential disaster, it could fall under MACA. NTCL is concerned about the channel there, so I guess that would fall under DOT.

We as a government have had the concern raised to us by the municipality and we have indicated to

them that there was some potential programs that we could flag for them to provide that information to them. We’ve also had a meeting with the Member for Hay River North, our Speaker, who has also raised this concern as something that’s beginning to be a real serious challenge of how we move forward. I believe our MP has had an opportunity to speak with Minister Gail Shea, who is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and those talks are ongoing. We have, of course, raised it also as a department with our federal counterparts and those discussions are ongoing.

Is the Minister aware of any federal funding which is specifically available in relation to these kinds of issues in navigable waters? I have observed from the air, flying into Hay River, the buildup of silt that’s creating its own delta beyond the delta. Vale Island is a delta in the mouth of the Hay River and I’ve observed it, flying over this summer. It is going to have a huge impact if something is not done about it. I will not recite all that again. Is the Minister aware of any federal funding that we as a government could access to address this?

We certainly agree with the Member’s description of what’s happening on the harbour. The silt buildup is of concern, of course, but the low waters are compounding the problem. We’ve had several users identify some programs that could potentially be resourced. I believe the municipality was provided with that information and followed up. My understanding is that it wasn’t successful.

We have talked to our federal counterparts. We have been talking to the Coast Guard and we’re hoping that they’ll be able to identify some dollars to at least provide some relief to the situation that’s growing in the town of Hay River.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve heard that it’s not the GNWT’s responsibility. The town is looking to this government for some assistance. It does impact our people. It does impact our industry, even if it is not technically our responsibility. Does this government have any money to help address this situation? I observed, with interest, the anticipation of the flooding of the Red River in Manitoba again, and I think technology has changed a bit since those old federal DPW dredges were out there.

There’s equipment, there’s people, there are contractors who are in this business. Like I said, I read it because it’s in the news with respect to the Red River and the anticipated flooding there again this year. If we could at least identify the scope of the problem and what needs to be done, then we might have a better idea of what it could cost. But

does this government have any money to help Hay River in this regard? Thank you.

I was going to say right up front that we didn’t have any money or resources to allocate to this situation, but it is a serious issue. It’s been raised by a number of sectors of people that live in Hay River and also the Hay River Reserve. We want to follow up on our discussions with the federal government. We are hoping our discussions with the Coast Guard are going to be successful; I can’t say that it is right now. We haven’t had anything confirmed in that area.

We need to bring in the federal government, especially the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. This is their area of responsibility. For us to step in and start assuming that without any resources, we’d have to take the money from another project or another area and that’s going to be difficult as resources are tight. I want to assure the Member that we’ll follow up. I am meeting with the Minister of Transportation in the next couple of weeks and I will certainly try to raise this as an issue that needs attention. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are with respect to respite services in the Northwest Territories. The Department of Health and Social Services is currently developing a territorial-wide respite program. I’m wondering if the Minister could please provide me with a bit of an outline on the timeline how they’re going to move forward and when they expect to actually see a territorial respite program ready to go for review by the Standing Committee on Social Programs, and also when we think a territorial respite program might be rolled out for all residents of the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Member laid out in his statement, there are various components that are being conducted right now, including the community workshops. So we expect that the work will be done by April/May in time for next year’s business cycle. Thank you.

As the Minister pointed out, there are regional respite focus groups taking place starting in February and going through February. That information, I understand, will then go to the advisory group who will provide some recommendations to the department on how to

design or what might be the best model to use in the Northwest Territories. Could the Minister please tell me what is the makeup of that advisory committee? Does it include non-government organizations like the NWT Disabilities Council as well as the Yellowknife Association for Community Living? Is there representation from small communities and towns throughout the Northwest Territories, and who else might be on that particular advisory group? Thank you.

There are employees of the department on the committee as well as NGO groups and regional organizations. Thank you.

That is not particularly helpful. If she could please give us some examples of the NGOs that are on that, that would give us a better sense as to who’s represented on this committee.

A second point that I’d like to ask about is: there are a lot of people here, 29 families who currently access services from the Yellowknife Association for Community Living. Clearly, this program is not going to be in place. It doesn’t sound like there will be even something to go forward to committee until the next business planning cycle. Is the Minister working with the Yellowknife Association for Community Living to provide services in the interim until a territorial respite program is designed? Specifically, will YACL be supported by the GNWT to provide respite services for those 29 families and any other new families that come to the table for services in Yellowknife? Thank you.

The Member is aware and we’ve had discussions with the committee about a way to go forward. I would like to just reiterate that we are committed to providing support to the families who are under the YACL program. Yellowknife Health and Social Services is currently negotiating a contribution agreement with YACL so that we continue to provide the programs to those families who are currently getting the services from YACL as we work toward a respite care program. I have communicated that to the Members and I’m happy to confirm that again in the House today. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Your final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the Minister for that. I think hearing that in the House is very important today for those 29 families and important for us to hear as MLAs.

I’d like to just go back to my previous question. If she could give me a bit of an understanding of what groups are represented on that advisory group. Are some of the groups in the Territory that are providing these types of services going to be represented on that advisory group? Specifically, the NWT Disabilities Council and Yellowknife

Association for Community Living; are they part of the advisory group? Simple question. Thank you.

The advisory group is not formed yet and so I will get back to the Member on that.

I just want to caution that we will, if that’s what the Member is wanting to know, definitely consult with the Council for Persons with Disabilities and YACL and other groups that are involved in this work. We need to make sure that eventually, at the end of the day, those are the groups who will be vying to provide the program and we don’t want to interfere with their ability to be able to deliver the programs. I need to make it clear that we will definitely consult with them to advise us. We will work with them throughout the process, but we don’t want to do anything that would jeopardize their ability to be a service provider when all the work is completed. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got a few questions today for the Minister of Transportation. It gets back to his statement earlier and my statement earlier about the Deh Cho Bridge Project.

I want to start off by thanking the Minister. Concerns were raised in this House a year ago in regard to some deficiencies with the project and the quality assurance on the project. I’d like to thank the Minister for directing the department to conduct the Levelton Report, as it’s called, and come up with the 14 recommendations contained in that report. I know that work is proceeding to address those concerns and, again, I want to thank the Minister for that.

The question that I want to ask the Minister is we had no bond in place with ATCON. We had a $13 million guarantee with the Bank of Nova Scotia. That’s been made good by the Province of New Brunswick. I just want to ask the Minister what analysis is the Minister and his department basing their estimates on, on getting the deficiencies addressed that would fit within that $13 million range. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Member for thanking me. I think this is the first time he’s ever thanked me for anything I’ve done on this project.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve had a guarantee on this project all along on the work that was to be done. I think we

have better than what would be in the bond at this point. We have cash in the bank. We have done an analysis. We have had our contractors look at what needs to be rectified. In most cases, Mr. Speaker, it’s a matter of going in and doing the actual testing, as we haven’t had all the documentation that we require. But to go in and do the testing on something that’s under water and is covered with rock at this point is just about as expensive as fixing the situation.

Mr. Speaker, we have some very good estimates. Of course, at this point, they’re still estimates. We feel that the cost of doing the work that was outlined in the Levelton Report will be anywhere from $4 million to $7 million, Mr. Speaker. That’s not even half of the money that we have as holdback for this project as we go forward. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, last year, as well, given what happened with ATCON, I had asked some questions about Ruskin and the Minister had confirmed that Ruskin had a 50 percent performance bond in place for the remainder of the work. I’d like to ask the Minister who holds that 50 percent performance bond that Ruskin has. Thank you.

I’m not sure as to who actually holds it. I would have to go and find that out. I will commit to finding that out and providing the information to the Member. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in the Minister’s statement earlier today, he had advised the House that Ruskin was going to come up with a revised construction schedule sometime by the end of February and, as I mentioned in my statement, time is money. If this project gets delayed, it will undoubtedly cost more. I am just wondering why it is that Regular Members have not seen the contract between Ruskin and the Government of the Northwest Territories for the remainder of the work on the Deh Cho Bridge Project so that we can better understand what our liabilities are and what would be eligible cost overruns, should the project be delayed much further. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe the Member has seen any contract from any projects we have across the government. It is not a practice that we provide the information to Regular Members on. We would need the consent of the contractors and, in most situations, the contractors would not agree to it, so that is why we haven’t provided it. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am handing out thank yous here, but I will thank the Minister for providing the Concession Agreement to committee some time ago. It was an embargoed

copy, that Concession Agreement, that we could have a look at in the committee room. We couldn’t make copies of it and hand it out, but we at least got a copy of it. If the department would let us have a look at the contract so that we can have a lawyer have a look at it and make our own judgments on what eligible cost overruns and delays in this project will mean to the overall cost of this project. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, more thank yous. Since assuming responsibility for this project, I made every effort to provide information to all Members and to the public. We have tried to make all documents available. We have provided regular updates to the MLAs. We have set up media briefings. We have had technical briefings. We have set up a website that has a camera that shows progress of the construction. We have now formed mail-out newsletters to the general public. We provided access to the Levelton Report, something that normally would not be done for any project, under any circumstance. We have had a review by the Auditor General, Mr. Speaker. It is our job as a department to ensure that due diligence is done on any contract we sign. At this point, we are not prepared to release the contract. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in my Member’s statement I spoke about mould-free home constructions and mould-free techniques for building homes. I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation what policies and guidelines are currently in place for our Housing Corporation to do this initiative. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation, Mr. Robert McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The standards that we use today are basically mould-free construction. There is moisture-resistant gyproc that is used in the washrooms, and all the proper ventilation that is needed. When they move into a brand new house, they can be assured that it is a mould-free unit and if they continue to maintain the unit as it is supposed to be, it will always be mould-free. Thank you.