Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to restate some of the background of this P3 and just give an overview. Generally, I am in favour of the P3 proposal. I guess we have to look back at what has happened to bring the P3 proposal forward as introduced by the Finance Minister.

I guess the government has done a capital needs assessment. That was completed. The GNWT identified about $200 million and more than $800 million immediately in various infrastructure capital projects and shortfalls in those fundings over the next short time and over the next 20 years. Those shortfalls were dominated by infrastructure needs in the areas of housing, transportation, municipal services, education, health and corrections. The government stated that the capital shortfalls could not be funded by the GNWT in the current fiscal climate and without ultimate funding and/or additional sources of capital, some projects would not proceed because the GNWT did not have the fiscal capacity to do. The P3 was intended to address some of these deficiencies.

The Finance Minister kept talking about partnerships. In its simplest form, Public/Private Partnerships occurred when the government entered into an agreement with a private organization to deliver a service. Before that, it was provided by the government. Traditionally, these partnerships have been based on the private sector providing all the assets, financing, staffing requirements and management services associated with the service and the government agency paying a fee for the service. An example of such a partnership, another jurisdiction included waste collection, contracts entered into by the municipalities in Ontario and wheelchair taxi cab services provided in metropolitan Toronto. There has been a wide range of approaches to the Public/Private Partnerships. More recently, the form of these partnerships has changed to reflect a greater sharing of roles and risks within the relationship. An ownership of equipment, the financing equipment and the risks associated with the revenues are being shared between the parties.

The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, are the risks that are being used to bring forward to P3, what are those risks, what is the exposure to this government and to other governments and ultimately to the tax payer who has to pay for entering into these P3 agreements? Mr. Ootes touched base on it earlier when he said that the P3 initiative had to be transparent not only in the process but to the public at large, who would be looking at the projects as they came forward. Today, we had an opportunity, in the Ordinary Members' Caucus, to finally see some projects that may be identified as P3 initiative projects. It was interesting to see those. Maybe later today we will have an opportunity to question the Minister of Finance on the delivery of those projects. With that, I will end my comments. I believe Mr. Ningark and some other Members would like to speak on this very important initiative. Thank you, Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague, Mr. Picco, to a degree. I also agree with Mr. Ootes, coming from a big community. What I have in mind is going back to smaller and remote communities where opportunities are few. The only time the majority of the people in the communities who are unemployed, Mr. Chairman, would have the opportunity to work is during seasonal summer construction. Oftentimes, Mr. Chairman, the community has a project in mind, a capital project, for that matter and because of its size, is not able to materialize the idea they had because of the size of the communities. There are no banks in the communities. The potential for partnership in a community to construct a building, capital project, is limited. Mr. Chairman, by the same token, when an important vote comes into this House, we from the small communities count. Oftentimes, small communities we represent do not seem to count. I hope the P3 initiative, Mr. Chairman, will recognize the small communities as they recognize us, the Members here, when it comes to supporting such an initiative. I hope Mr. Ootes' motion also recognizes the small communities.

Mr. Chairman, when I got elected to talk to people, I travelled around my area. I have seen the hope of people, elders, middle aged, employed or unemployed, especially young families or those young people who are about to have their own families, talk to me about their dreams and aspirations, how they thought I could make a difference. I tried. In some areas, I was successful and I thank the Members who supported me. I am not saying that Members have not supported me, but to a limited degree, Mr. Chairman, too many times we have seen projects, programs, services, initiatives, et cetera, of this government fail to address the real need of small communities.

Mr. Chairman, because we have limited resources, financially speaking, in this government, we have come up with a billion ideas which we know as P3. I support this initiative's incentive, technically speaking, but at the same time, I have reservations of this initiative because I wonder, Mr. Chairman, will P3 benefit the small, remote communities, where we do not have all the resources, we do not have the means? I hope so. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I hope the Finance Minister, the Premier, Cabinet Members, government operation Members and every Member of this Legislature will remember your grassroots. You come from a community elected by your small community. In essence, make sure you remember your community as well as you remember the big centres. If the larger centres, Mr. Chairman, benefit from this initiative, I thank God, but at the same time, let us try to do something for those who have not had the chance to benefit from some programs and services of this government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

--Applause

I thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. I have Mr. Ootes on the list, but before I recognize Mr. Ootes, I will ask Members who have not spoken yet to speak to each item on the table. But before then, on behalf of Mr. Krutko, in the public gallery, I would like to recognize Tom Williams and Neil Pascal. Welcome.

--Applause

Thank you. Are there Members who have not spoken to this item on the table who wish to speak? Mr. Erasmus.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to indicate that I do support the Public/Private Partnership concept. We have discussed this for some time. There were some Members asking for this particular initiative to come forward prior to Cabinet bringing it forward. We have discussed it, as I indicated, in many different forums and also at the Ordinary Members Caucus level. The motion will be coming forward that I will be supporting which we have all agreed to. Mr. Chairman, in addition to that, I wanted to indicate that I do not believe the larger centres should be kept out of the picture just because they are larger centres. We all should have a chance at these P3 projects. We all have private businesses within our communities that need the business. As well, most of us have local development corporations or local construction notices that belong to the bands or the Metis locals that can go to partnership with larger construction companies and that type of thing. Mr. Chairman, I understand some Members' concerns that the smaller communities should have an equal opportunity and I agree. They should have an equal opportunity, but just because the larger communities are larger, they should not be discounted either.

The other thing I wanted to indicate is that these projects should be spread around and that one community, just for argument's sake, say the community of Iqaluit, should not get ten projects and some place else like Arviat, gets none. The projects, I believe, have to be considered as to where they are going, not just the financial benefits and the rest of this. We also have to ensure they are spread out so all regions can benefit from the initiative.

There are a few other concerns I have. One has to do with potential monopolistic behaviour by the private partners. Private partners can exhibit monopolistic behaviour after the project has been put into place and which may increase the cost in the long run, particularly with longer-term commitments. Sometimes, from past projects we have seen where a developer can have exclusive rights to an infrastructure facility and this, of course, is what we are talking about, a practical monopoly. It could cost more in the long run, so we have to ensure this type of thing does not occur.

Also, I would hope that financing these projects is not done through the regular use of short-term bank loans. We all know that with short-term bank loans you have to pay extra interest costs, so it would be nice if we can figure out a way that these types of costs are not incurred.

Also, to go along with the idea that the project should be spread out, we want to guard against perpetualization of contracts in a sense, so that the same contractors are not in a bunch of different projects with different people, then there is maybe one or two larger companies involved with a huge amount of contracts which creates a monopoly. Hopefully, there will be measures implemented into this as well. The other thing, in Nova Scotia, I understand, the government was recently forced to extend large interest free loans to P3 private partners. The private sector could not raise the funds to cover construction costs as they had anticipated. I would hope that our government takes measures to ensure that we will not be placed in a position of undue risk should a private partner, involved in any particular venture, not be able to fulfil their financial obligations. One other area which I suppose has been brought up at some other time, is the cost of preparing proposals. It does cost money for businesses, for anybody, to put together a proposal, therefore, we must ensure that we are not getting people to put forward proposals and that type of thing if we are not actually going to go ahead with the project. We have to guard against that, because there is no sense in making people spend a bunch of money if it is not necessary. That, Mr. Chairman, once again, I indicate my support for this particular proposal based on Yellowknife getting a few proposals.

--Laughter

Mr. Chairman, as long as there are adequate measures put in place to ensure that projects are spread out and the risks involved are spread out amongst the government and the private partners. We do not want the government to take the most risk and winding up footing the bill in the end. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Erasmus. Mr. O'Brien.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I do support the P3 proposal, but I do think it should be geared toward absolute need for infrastructure such as schools and health related facilities. For example, the Arviat Health Centre which has been bounced off the list of critically needed facilities for the last number of years like a beach ball. I agree with my colleagues, Mr. Steen, Mr. Ningark and Mr. Krutko that we should pay particular attention to the smaller, less fortunate, off-road communities. This is not to say that the larger communities should be neglected. For the most part, larger regional centres and larger communities like Yellowknife, do very well in looking after themselves and providing their constituents with what they request.

Mr. Chairman, I do support the proposal, whether the proposal is successful or not, and I truly hope that it is and that it gets approved. Projects that are designated for the smaller off-road communities should go ahead at any rate. With that thought in mind, this morning we heard in this House that we will need $40 million to deal with the pay equity dispute and some other issues and that can be done with a stroke of a pen. If that is the case, we can find the necessary dollars to look after the smaller communities and their needs such as hospitals, schools and so on. This is all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien. If there are no other Members who have not spoken to the Table Document 9-13(5) I will now recognize Mr. Ootes. Before that, any other Members who wish to speak of this matter on the table? Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. The motion is in order. It is written and it is circulated to Members. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Your motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Thank you.

--Applause

Does the committee agree that Tabled Document 19-13(5) is concluded?

Agreed.

Thank you, Members. There being no further business before the committee. I will rise and report progress to the speaker. Thank you.

The House will come back to order. Good afternoon. We are on item 20, report of the committee of the whole. Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon to you. Your committee has been considering Bill 11,

Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 3, 1997-98; Committee Report 6-13(5); Tabled Document 15-13(5); Tabled Document 19-13(5) and would like to report progress with seven motions being adopted and that consideration of Committee Report 6-13(5); Tabled Documents 15-13(5) and 19-13(5) are concluded, and Bill 11, is ready for third reading. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the committee of the whole be concurred with.