Thanks for those comments from the Minister. I appreciate all the work that is being done there and is underway. I’d like to confirm that the Minister’s portfolios are gathering the necessary data we’ll need, recognizing that the NWT is likely a bit different than the rest of the jurisdictions where this has been applied. So we’ll have to customize such a tool to make sure it benefits us to the greatest extent.

So is the Minister ensuring that all the data that will be needed to make good decisions is being collected? Mahsi.

Thank you. We appreciate the Member’s point and we are of the same mind, that whatever we do has to be tailored and reflect the realities of the Northwest Territories as an individual and unique jurisdiction. We are doing the work in both areas, both on the Finance side and Environment and Natural Resource side, to pull together the best information that’s available so that we can set all the pieces in place for the incoming Assembly to make an informed decision, hopefully as quickly as possible. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are addressed to the Premier today and I want to speak to some of the questions that have arisen from the Auditor General’s report.

In February of 2008, when the project was at financial close and things were in a bit of a critical situation, I believe that the Department of Transport expressed concern that the bridge design was not complete, and at that point, according to what the Minister of Transportation said earlier, there was a decision by Cabinet to go ahead with the project without design approval. I’d like to know on what basis, if the Premier can advise on what basis Cabinet made that decision to go ahead with the construction of the bridge. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let’s be clear on this: Cabinet did not overrule Transportation. The fact is this project was under the Department of Transportation and it is the initiative of the department and Minister to bring forward papers for discussions on that process.

I didn’t hear an answer to the question there. If a department brings forward a proposal, there must have been some basis on which a decision is made to go on one side or the other. I didn’t hear an answer as to what basis that decision was made on.

I’d like to know also from the Premier, when this decision was being considered, was there an evaluation of the risk to the project, for instance, cost overruns, if the project went ahead to construction without approval of bridge design?

The process of any construction project coming forward, number one, the specific department would have to do a number of analyses in coming forward with a request for a decision. In this case, the Department of Transportation looked at many of those options and came forward with their paper. Decisions were made based on that.

Now, as well, I must say, as we’re talking about a decision made back in February at the request of Members of this Assembly to myself, I had authorized the Department of Executive to work with the departments involved, that was Transportation, Justice and Finance at the time, to do a review. We submitted that paper to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure on March 3, 2008, going over a number of the concerns that were raised by Members at that time.

I didn’t really hear an answer to my question about what kind of evaluation was done at the time that the decision was made so I guess I’m not going to get one.

I’d like to ask the Premier, in February of 2008 as well we’ve understood from the Auditor General’s report that regulations to the Financial Administration Act were amended and at that time the requirement for 14 days’ advance notice to Members was also waived. I’d like to know from the Premier why Members were not advised of the waiving or the amendment to the regulations even if it had to be after the fact.

There was no waiving of notice of Members. It is a natural part of the decision to provide an exemption to indemnification where the process that was followed is a standard practice and has been in place since 1999. This decision to do that as a normal part of business -- and governments across the land use this as a tool -- was to address the need to indemnify, in the initial case, the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and then follow up with the lenders. We could read out exactly what that indemnification meant. Again, in the paper, in the response that I gave to committee we did reflect on the need to adjust the current processes going forward and reference the work that was ongoing, for example, in the Financial Administration Act. That work is still ongoing that would look towards those issues.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Premier for that response. I guess maybe if that information went to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure I did not see it as I’m not on that committee. I’d like to ask the Premier if he would commit to providing the information that went to Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure relative to the amendment of these regulations. If he could commit to provide that to me and Members on this side of the House.

Again, the notifications particular to what the Member just stated about the amendment to indemnifications, the list is attached to the regulations. The Minister of Finance can provide a list of those that are included in the regulations. Again, this process does not, it is a normal part of business and it foregoes the 14-day process that we’ve gone through. That was discussed with Members. In fact, again, the letter I wrote to the chair of Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure and the attachment highlighted the need for looking at a modernization of the Financial Administration Act and the area of loan guarantees and indemnities.

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

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister responsible for Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’re still working on the document we’ve had. As the Member indicated, we visited committee and we presented the work that we’ve done. We presented the work that was coming out of Canada in terms of their thresholds and how they approached the issue.

As I recall, it was quite an extensive document and given the context of the Auditor General’s report on the Deh Cho Bridge Project, when establishing P3s that’s something that should be real and tangible. Does that document speak to that?

The Member has touched on a key point in terms of the risk and the tangible benefits. We do have an extensive list of feedback from the committee that we received in December and that work is still being reviewed in looking at how we can incorporate it into the policy going forward.

That’s something certainly this side of the House would like to support and engage once we come down to a good policy that will protect us in the future and give us positive benefits not only for ourselves but for all Northerners. I’d like to ask the Minister what the next stage is. I think our side of the House is waiting for government’s response on what the next steps are in developing our P3 policy.

In the next number of weeks we will conclude looking at what feedback we got from committee and we will look at how we can adjust the policy which we will then send back to committee for their review.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Working with the P3 policy I think the next step is to sit down with committee. I’d just like to ask the Minister, I don’t know how much detail is in there, but what would be the size of the projects that are actually listed in there by financial value? What is the minimum for a P3 project?

That’s going to be part of the challenge. As we look at, for example, the federal approach to P3s, they have a fairly high threshold of $50 million. We’ve heard the concerns from the committee that in the North that’s going to put most projects out of reach. That’s one of the areas where we have to come to a final agreement on.