The NWT Film Commission falls under the Industry, Tourism and Investment portfolio of the department. Would it be in the best interest to allow a little bit more flexibility that if, possibly like the NWT Tourism, this commission becomes independent of the government so that they can run on their own timelines but also access funding from the government? Has the Minister had any discussions on that with his colleagues, in terms of possibly looking at that as a stepping away from the government?

That’s a very novel idea that the Member has and I believe it probably has some merit. It’s something I’ll take back to the department for consideration. We work very closely with NWT Tourism and continue to do so. We also work very closely with my colleague, Minister Lafferty at ECE. If there’s a way to do this, we want

to, again, make sure we’re doing the right things. Again, the Member has a good idea and it’s something we’ll take into consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources. I’d like to follow up on my Member’s statement. I want to ask the Minister with regard to the project team’s response to the environmental assessment on the Giant Mine.

On October 21

this House passed a motion which

said, “that the Government of the Northwest Territories accept the measures and suggestions contained in the report of the environmental assessment,” and that motion was passed by the House.

Eleven days later the project team released a letter to the public, and that was signed by an assistant deputy minister from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. I’m finding it very difficult that we have, as a government, a motion that was passed to accept the recommendations of this report and we then get a response signed by an assistant deputy minister of one of our government departments which basically refutes the recommendation.

I’d like to ask the Minister if he can explain to the House who authorized the signing of the letter which was the response to the MVERB’s report.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m the responsible Minister in this instance, and that responsibility is mine.

I understand he’s the responsible Minister; I accept that, but he’s also the Minister responsible for the environment in the NWT. He should be, in my mind, looking after the best interests of the residents of the NWT.

I’d like to know if the Minister can advise me, and advise the House and the general public, how he can be responsible for the cleanup at the mine on behalf of NWT residents, and at the same time, he is responsible for the regulation of the project, which in this case is rejecting the recommendations.

I can assure the Member and this House, and everybody listening, that I am indeed very cognizant in my responsibility as the Minister of Environment and

Natural Resources, and my responsibility to make sure that we do in fact protect the environment.

As the government, one of the governments involved, the federal government and territorial government, we have a responsibility to clean up one of the worst environmentally contaminated sites in the country. It’s going to be a billion dollar project at the end of the day, and we are hard at work doing that. We get advice and recommendations from many quarters. We don’t disagree with a lot of the work or intent of what’s being presented to us through this report, but we definitely are of the opinion that they required some modification. We are the folks on the ground. We are the governments responsible; they’re going to have to be accountable, and are accountable, for how that project is carried out.

We intend to continue working with all the involved parties, but we have an obligation, and our job is to make sure, at the end of the day, we have to pull all those pieces together and make the appropriate decisions, which is what we’re doing in this case.

I’m afraid we have to agree the work that the Minister is doing is going to be in the best interest of NWT residents. This project, albeit they may be working hard at trying to do the cleanup, it’s not in the best interests of residents. Over half of the recommendations are suggested by the Giant team. The project team is suggesting that over half of the recommendations be modified or rejected.

I’d like to know from the Minister why is it so important that 50 percent, more than 50 percent of the recommendations from the MVERB report, why is it so important that they be rejected. Cost should be a factor, as I mentioned earlier.

There is not a question of have to be rejected. We did a review of the recommendations. We looked at them closely. We looked at how they all fit together. Some of them are sequential. There are issues related to time, to cost and to scope of the project. In spite of the Member’s comments that money is no object, when you’re in government, in fact, money is a constant object.

But very clearly, the concern is cleaning up the site. We don’t want any delays. Some of the concerns, in our opinion, are that some of their recommendations, because they’re sequential, for example, could add up to three to four years to the project. There is existing degradation that’s going to continue, and we have to get on with the process of doing the freezing that’s been agreed to of the 237,000 metric tonnes of arsenic trioxide.

We’re going to continue to do all the work necessary and we’re going to continue to work with the folks here. There are some issues that we don’t agree with, and so, as the Member is fond of

saying, on some of these issues we’re going to have to agree to disagree, I would imagine.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s unfortunate that the Minister feels we have to disagree on something which would go towards assuaging the concerns of residents, particularly here in Yellowknife.

I’d like to ask the Minister if he can tell me, one of the recommendations which was rejected referenced an oversight of the project, and there’s no recognition from the response from the team of environmental agreements that have been worked on. There is no recognition that oversight is a very large concern for residents.

Can the Minister tell me, again, to this particular one, why is oversight of the project a recommendation that he is rejecting?

With the issue of oversight, there has been a general agreement. There were, in fact, letters written where the Giant Mine Remediation Project Environmental Monitoring Advisory Committee would not make decisions with respect to the operations of the project. Operation responsibilities and decisions would remain with the developer in a joint letter in response to the review board on June 11, 2012. The question is what type of an oversight, and there’s a difference of opinion between the oversight meaning a veto and oversight means best advice and recommendations as we on the operational side as responsible Ministers do the work necessary to remediate that particular site. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today, I talked about the need for what one could call an independent audit on the Deh Cho Bridge and certainly the process. We definitely need an independent audit that has teeth. Of course, as many of us will remember, there seemed to be always questions about internal information being released at a weird time, and certainly rumours about people calling the lender and harassing them about the incompetence of both government and the bridge management. That didn’t play well on to the government when we were saddled with the $200 million end cost, which really could have paralyzed this government.

I will focus my questions to the Minister of Transportation, certainly the new Minister of Transportation, new on the file. Would he be willing

to launch an independent audit on the Deh Cho Bridge Project as soon as possible? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister of Transportation, Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time the department is moving forward with a retrospective evaluation of the bridge and carrying out the work. We’re also doing an analysis of what we have found and monitoring as we do some additional work to repair anything that could be an issue on the bridge. At this time the department feels that carrying out this type of work, doing the monitoring, retrospective evaluation of the work and so on, would be more valuable than doing another audit. Thank you.

It was my understanding that the former Minister promised this and other people have been promising that we will have an independent audit. Quite frankly, if the Department of Transportation is monitoring themselves, we might as well just surrender to the results already because it does seem somewhat biased. I’m not trying to be mean here today, but self-evaluation really only works well when you’re, I guess, meditating.

I ask once again for the taxpayer, for the people in the Northwest Territories, would the Minister look at launching an independent audit that had teeth so we could truly understand who helped cause so many problems in this Deh Cho Bridge process and so we can get to the bottom of this and solve this problem, not only looking back but also looking forward? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, as the Member may be aware, the Auditor General has looked at the bridge, and the mid-project performance review was completed by the Auditor General. All of the recommendations that were put in by the Auditor General were carried out by the department. As I indicated, information I have at this time, all indications are that there is not an issue and that anything that we are picking up during the monitoring and the usability of the bridge and everything, if there are issues, the department is carrying out corrective measures. Right now we are thinking that an evaluation of what is happening with the bridge and how the bridge was done, looking at what happened during the midlife audit are all things that we’re incorporating and don’t really feel that we should commit to calling another audit of the bridge at this time. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General looked at a certain area. The Levelton Report looked at a certain area, but it never looked at investigating on who worked to derail the project, who released information, who harassed the lender, of that type. Those are the things the taxpayers deserve answers to. We have 200 million reasons to ask ourselves, did someone try to scuttle this

project from day one. That’s the question I am after, not one of those things. The Department of Transportation looking at themselves I highly doubt that they will look at themselves under that type of scrutiny.

My question once again is: Would the Minister be willing to look at an independent audit now that I have cited all of those concerns that we need to get to the bottom of? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the Deh Cho Bridge meets and exceeds all of Canada’s national bridge codes when it was constructed and completed. The department doesn’t see an issue with the bridge. If there certainly are issues that we are unaware of, then I would welcome getting that information. If we were to receive information indicating that there are certain problems, if we were to receive information that there may have been some wrongdoings during the construction or dealings with the construction of the bridge, we will certainly look at that. If that means bringing in an auditor to look at that, we would do that. We would like to do the right thing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Speaker, I think I’ve highlighted some of the reasons and I’m happy to repeat them again. I said that because the lender pulled the loan and the GNWT became saddled with it, I think we should be investigating exactly why that happened, what led up to that and what information caused such destruction and angst for them to do that.

What more information is the Minister looking at or need to look at in order to say, wait a minute, something happened here, we almost paralyzed the government with this situation. As such, once again I ask the Minister, would he be willing to launch an audit to look at this situation. We have the date, the time, the place and we know all the players in this situation. What’s stopping him?

Mr. Speaker, as far as the loan goes and how the lender had pulled the loan from the…(inaudible)…is something that the department has looked at. At the time this had occurred, this decision was made; however, I don’t have the details of specifically what had occurred, what had occurred in the inner workings of the loan and so on. I am prepared to gather that information to start with. I can look at that information and determine if I do see that there was an issue wrong with it, then I will share it with Members across the floor. Thank you.