Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the P3 initiative has generated quite a lot of interest all over the Northwest Territories, not only in the business community but also within boards and agencies of this government. The key principles, as tabled by the Finance Minister, on this initiative included exercising critical judgement in some key areas. At this time it is opportune to go through some of those, including the evaluation of each P3 opportunity on its own merits and only undertake projects that are feasible, negotiating the best deal for the tax payers of the Northwest Territories. Mr. Chairman, ultimately, the taxpayers will have to pay the cost of any P3. Ensure that the quality of services being provided to all residents of the NWT throughout the life of the P3 and also be aware that P3 require a shift in organizational thinking from directing and operating to managing. In all, my understanding of the P3 is, Mr. Chairman, for the development of building infrastructures. I am not interested in any way, shape or form in P3 that would be used to run organizations or to deliver programs or services on behalf of this government. I believe that is the point of public government. Mr. Todd talked earlier about the transparency of the P3. There is perception out there that this government is going to have to work on to ensure that the perception is not one of slush funding or a pork barrelling exercise that, indeed, the projects that come forward for sponsorship under the P3 would be something that had been identified in the five-year capital plan or project that had been deferred because of a lack of financial resources. This cannot be overstated, Mr. Chairman.
In most jurisdictions where P3 have been used, they have been used for larger projects, for example, the bridge between PEI and New Brunswick. They have not been used for outdoor skating rinks or the purchase of a zamboni or something like that. They have been used for larger projects and that is one of the reasons why I have supported the P3 in principle because of the need for the two medical facilities that have been in the capital plan since 1988, and have not been able to come through because of the lack of money available. Those two specific projects are the Baffin hospital and the Inuvik hospital. I see the P3 initiative being fundamental in bringing those two forward. However, after saying that, I have not seen any type of final list of any projects or which projects that have been asked for. As politicians, each individual Member wants to see projects go forward in their riding. To me, that is not necessarily the reason for coming through with a project. I hope the Finance Minister, Cabinet and the Members themselves will exercise critical judgment based on what is actually needed and not on what is wanted. This is where the transparency of the total project would come in.
The other concerns, Mr. Chairman, are on the long-term implication cost to the government and not necessarily the government of the day but the government of other days who have to pick up the costs in the leasing. This type of program on a larger project - for example, of my riding of $25 million for the hospital or Inuvik, which is $18 or $20 million - has to be transparent so that at the end of the day the taxpayer, who will ultimately be responsible for paying those bills, can see what the dollar value is.
There is also a fundamental shift required in organizational thinking from this government to the private sector in the development of these projects. What type of role, for example, does the Department of Public Works have in the formulating and evaluating proposals that are brought forward? The Department of Public Works is our expertise in that field. What type of questions or answers will be given before, during and after the start-up of a major P3 program? Also, Mr. Chairman, because you would hope that the P3 initiative would be used for larger projects over two or three years, where is the continuity within a project for that input from the government of the day? As we know because of timelines and so on, different governments will be elected. If a program or a project goes on for three years, will that same commitment be there from that government to continue with the project? What will the legal obligations and financial responsibilities of those governments be? Those types of concerns have not really been addressed yet.
Mr. Todd talked about earlier getting confidence from the committee, from this house, to give him direction to encompass transparency, privatization. Maybe sometime today within the committee of the whole, Mr. Ootes or one of the other Members, Chairman of the OMC, maybe we should introduce a motion outlining our concerns in the committee of the whole to encompass and give direction and give that level of comfort that Mr. Todd talks about that we move forward on this initiative. Mr. Chairman, the P3 initiative is a profound way in the way this government does business. It should not be there to bring forward projects that have always been deferred because of other reasons other than the lack of monies to do it. Each project has to be looked at in the context of the community and the results that government is trying to get from putting the facilities in place. For example, again we can see the need for those hospital projects because they have been on the books for so long. I do not think anyone could debate that. They have been in the capital plan. That seems like the only way right now we can get those two facilities on stream. Other projects I am not aware of, I have not seen anything concrete telling me what other projects are going to come forward on the P3 and the type of analyses and recognition of those projects. That is what the public and the business interest would like to see.
Government, Mr. Chairman, is set up to facilitate goods and services and programs for the people. Sometimes government programs and services are not the most cost efficient, but they are in place because of the economies of scale. If private business tried to do the same types of programs, services or construction projects, business is in business to make money. We have to remember that. I do not want to see any type of dereliction between what the government has to do and the services and programs delivered by government and see that taken away by the private sector. When I see the key principles of the P3, it says, to ensure the quality of service that is being provided to all residents of the NWT throughout the life of the P3. What does quality of service mean? Hopefully, it does not mean the delivery of programs and services. My understanding and support for the P3 are based on infrastructure development and based on limited infrastructure development which has been brought forth prioritized by project bases and not on some wish list from me or anybody else as a politician. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will end my opening comments on the P3 initiative. Thank you.