Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Motion is on the floor. Motion is in order. To the motion. Honourable Member for Kam Lake, Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. This is an issue that has garnered much discussion amongst Members of this House over the past week and a half since we've been back in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I want to be clear, and state again for the record, that in no way am I opposed to a bridge across the Mackenzie River at Fort Providence. That's not the onus of this motion. The onus of this motion, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the project has changed. It has changed tremendously. It has gone from a self-financing model five years ago to one that will now need an additional at least $2 million more in government funds on a yearly basis to proceed.

This motion is about transparency, Mr. Speaker. It's about accountability; it's about moving things forward by working together, and I do have some concerns on how exactly the bridge project jumped the queue for priorities of the government. It's interesting how that happens when we've never had a debate in this House in the four years I've been here on what are the big infrastructure priorities here. We've never had the debate. There are so many competing interests out there, like the Mackenzie Valley highway, chipsealing of Highway No. 5, the road to gravel source 177 near Tuk, the extension of Highway No. 4 to Gordon Lake, the Tuk-Inuvik highway. There are a number of competing priorities out there. There are a number of competing priorities out there, Mr. Speaker. Why the urgency to move this forward right now?

Mr. Speaker, I'll be clear on this: All along, in the three and a half years, that loan guarantee to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation has been increased four or five times. Every time the government would come back to Regular Members saying we've got to get some federal money to get this bridge to go ahead, there has to be federal money. So, Mr. Speaker, it was very surprising when the Premier announced in his sessional statement that the bridge was going to go ahead.

It was odd and it left a lot of questions unanswered. Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate, I really do appreciate the fact that the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation is in negotiations. Those numbers, those details are secret right now. But what this motion does, Mr. Speaker, is it asks the government, before they enter into any agreement that's going to bind the next government and every government for 35 years after that to spending public funds, it should come back here, it should show us what the potential impact is on the cost of living in Yellowknife, the Tlicho communities and the Akaitcho communities; it should also show us what the total cost is going to be of this bridge.

Mr. Speaker, we've never had a debate and that's the sad reality of this. This government, the 15th Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, has never had a debate about a Deh Cho Bridge, not since I've been here. Hopefully this motion today will get out there, it will allow Members to stand up to talk about the Deh Cho Bridge, and that's a good thing, Mr. Speaker. We're here, these are public funds, we need to have some accountability, it needs to be as transparent a transaction as it possibly can be.

I would encourage Members to support this motion. Again, it doesn't say don't build the bridge. It says when you're done negotiations, come back to us. Let us see what we are getting ourselves into. I don't think that's too much to ask, Mr. Speaker. So with that, I'll close with these opening comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, am going to support this motion here, as Mr. Ramsay has indicated, in terms of having some transparency in this government in terms of having some discussion. I, too, see the benefits of the Deh Cho Bridge being built across the Mackenzie River, as I also have aspirations for a Great Bear River bridge being built across our land, and

other bridges that need to be built down the Mackenzie Valley here.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, was quite amazed how this project received quite a lot of attention in the last couple of weeks. I know we have gotten some other briefings in some other rooms on this project here, and the reason for this is it's all of a sudden we're deciding to build it. Well, we in the smaller communities are asking for special initiatives to be built in our regions such as other programs we could list off, but, Mr. Speaker, that's not the point here. The point is that we want some open, transparent discussions on mega projects. This is not just Fort Providence or areas around Yellowknife. This is a Northwest Territories project. When you look at projects down the Mackenzie Valley, in the Gwich'in or the Beaufort-Delta or the Sahtu, we seem to have that, well, it's a territorial project, we have to have some discussion. This one is a P3 project that's being negotiated with the community of Fort Providence under the corporate act that gives them some legal authority, legal powers, to work on this. But it's a Northwest Territories project, also. Mr. Speaker, the things I'd like to look at is if you change the physical landscape of the Mackenzie River, you know you change the people, you change the way of life, and this bridge here will certainly do that to the people in Fort Providence who are on ground zero. What are some of the things we could look out for them in terms of if this is a project that is being built in one of our small communities, are we preparing ourselves for this community, because it's at ground zero, for lots of social impacts, for the economic benefits that would come off this project? It's just like any other projects I have witnessed in our region. There are good impacts and then there are also some negative impacts in the region. So that's the thing I wanted to ask this government here in terms of how are we preparing the people and the way of life. I mean there are things in there that said they have the environmental and the water licence approved, but the way of life for the people on the river here. So those things I want to look at, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that I heard from the Members here is in terms of the break-up of the Mackenzie River and how it puts some hardships onto some of the people outside the area that use the ferry, such as the city of Yellowknife and Providence and some of the Tlicho communities, even the areas around the Nahendeh. Our communities in the Sahtu are isolated pretty well, in terms of that type of transportation, for about eight months. We just don't seem to have a priority to have them catch up to the other regions in terms of this type of infrastructure. There's lots of things we could do, so I'm very surprised as to how this project got bumped right up without any type of secure commitment from the federal government and we're going to pay one way or another.

So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a good debate on this. Like Mr. Ramsay has indicated, we need some good debate, we need some good discussions on this in the House as a whole, otherwise these projects would go under the radar if we didn't catch them in time to say let's have some open discussion on this project.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an amendment to Motion 8-15(6). I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Nunakput, that Motion 8-15(6) be amended by adding the words "and the general public" immediately after the words "until it has provided Regular Members" in the resolution to this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the amendment. The honourable Member from Nunakput, Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. To the amendment. The honourable Member from Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to mention to the amendment here, by adding the general public, to my knowledge there has not been a general public information session on the Deh Cho Bridge since 2003 in Yellowknife. Now I'm not sure exactly about other communities like in Behchoko or Lutselk'e or any of the other communities in the North Slave region, but that hasn't happened. So I think it's important that the public gets a chance to see the numbers as well and they have a chance to see if there's going to be an impact on the cost of living. So I certainly am supportive of the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the amendment. The honourable Member from Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will support the amendment. I think it is important to get public opinion on this and, hey, there's an election campaign coming. What a great election issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the amendment.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

To the motion, as amended. The honourable Member from Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if we need a bridge, I don't know if the Deh Cho Bridge is a priority of northerners. I suggest that we have some more consultation to ascertain the answer to those questions and I'm not sure if we're not just jumping in because this Legislative Assembly is coming to a close. I don't know what the panic is all of a sudden on the bridge, but I want to say I do support the Deh Cho Bridge myself because it's good for Hay River and it's close enough to Hay River that there's going to be some economic activity for Hay River around the construction of this bridge. I'm looking forward to that and I'd like to see that pre-cast concrete forms or pieces that

they need to build for the deck, I'd like to see that plant located in Hay River. So we'll be lobbying for that.

So I am in agreement, in principle, with the idea of a bridge, but the questions raised in this motion are valid questions. When we started off, when we passed the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation Act, this was a $70 million project. Now it's a $150 million project and it's just good business, it's just good government, it just makes sense to reconfirm our business case and then all those good and valid arguments can be raised. If we wait, it's going to cost more and the inflation is going to drive the price up and we can just have that discussion and enter into this feeling very confidently that we're doing the right thing as opposed to just jumping in at the deep end just because this Assembly is coming to a close and we think that somehow the time is of the essence. I think we could just take time to answer those questions. The government can come back with the answers to those questions very, very quickly if they choose to. So this isn't necessarily something that would delay a decision either. So I would encourage the government to answer these questions and I support the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the amended motion. The honourable Member from Tu Nedhe, Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of this motion, but I have to agree with some of my colleagues here. I do support in principle that we could use a bridge, but I do support this motion as amended because, as various other Members have pointed out, it does make us more accountable and more transparent; more importantly, it makes us more responsible to the electorate. As far as I can see, this bridge is going to be paid for by all residents of the NWT over the next 35 or 40 years and I think it's to those residents that we owe all the transparent information that we can give them to ensure that we're making a really informed and responsible decision in that spending over the next 35 years that they're going to be out of pocket with.

So, Mr. Speaker, we, here in the northern part of the NWT and Yellowknife, the Tlicho, Providence, the communities, you know, we've lived with the ferry since day one and even beyond that. I don't see anybody in Yellowknife, for instance, complaining that they're out of pocket in the cost of living as compared to Hay River or south of the lake because we don't have a bridge. To me, through this motion, I'd like to see the government show me that there is evidence that the people up here in the northern part of the NWT with the connection of the bridge is going to make life all that much sweeter and cheaper for everybody here. We know houses are skyrocketing north and south of the lake. It's pretty much all relative where we are and I just can't support a simple notion that a $150 million or $160 million bridge is going to make things all that much better here, and people are going to have more money to spend, and it's going to be easier for industry to come here and work in the northern regions with the bridge in place, because all we're looking at really is three weeks to a month that we're out. We're innovative and creative here in the NWT and we always find ways, cheaper ways of working to remain sustainable. So when the government does come back and gives us some impact benefits analysis, a cost of living analysis that shows we could really benefit over the long run, gee whiz, I'll stand behind them 110 percent, 1,000 percent, wherever you want. But right now I do like the idea of a bridge. I'm not just going to fully endorse it just because of the fact that it's a good idea. I'd like to see that the numbers do show that we will have savings over the long term and people will benefit over the long term. I'll just leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. To the motion, as amended. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will stand up to support this motion as amended. When the Premier made his sessional statement it became clear that he announced that the project will move ahead. I did get some calls from back home on why this government should invest $130 million in this Deh Cho Bridge.

Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I think that this government at times would think that Ottawa is not listening to us when we do talk about issues that affect us. What's more important I think in my riding back in the Sahtu and Beaufort-Delta, we really feel left out in terms of projects that we think are important. To go ahead and decide, you know, let's go ahead with the Deh Cho Bridge, it really causes disappointment back home in terms of infrastructure that's required.

In regard to the amount of time down here that people have to be without, or what you call a certain link from south to north, you're only looking at four weeks in a year. Take a look at back home. Once the ice road goes in in mid-May, we have to rely on the airlines right until mid-December when the ice road is open again. When you take a look at the time span, it's costly for us.

So I like the motion that's put forward because, like Mr. Ramsay said, we're not trying to stop this bridge, but all we want is more information with regard to the total costing of the bridge and I really think it's important that the Members on that side really take consideration of this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. To the motion, as amended. The honourable Member from Range Lake, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to enter into this debate today and I'd like to thank the Members for bringing the motion forward. I'd like to start off by saying I do have concerns about this motion. I like the fact that we're doing the debate, but I do have concerns about the motion in that it sort of casts a little bit of dark shadow on something I think is great news and a great project and something that we should all get behind 1,000 percent. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the kind of innovative, visionary, a big action item that governments should do more of. We should build the roads all the way to Tuktoyaktuk. We should build every bridge in Sahtu...