Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This topic of the Deh Cho Bridge has been a topic that was discussed back in May when we were here. I even brought the subject up three years ago, Mr. Speaker, with the concerns I had over the project at that time.
I want to state, first and foremost, that my opposition to this bridge being built is nothing personal, it's nothing against the community of Fort Providence. I think the community of Fort Providence deserves to have economic development and opportunity. My big issue with this bridge project is the fact that the government has gone ahead based on five-year-old legislation and made some decisions without consulting Regular Members of the House on how that money is going to be spent and what it is going to be used for. The $1.8 million a year that goes into the ice road crossing and the ferry operation at Fort Providence is going to be used on paying for the bridge for the next 35 years. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, another $2 million indexed for the next 35 years is going to be required to pay for this bridge. Mr. Speaker, that's where my issue is with the government.
At no time, Mr. Speaker, over the last four years has the government had a discussion with Regular Members of this House on that decision to spend the additional $2 million. We did not have a vote on it; we did not have a debate on it. We did not have an opportunity to discuss it whatsoever. We got briefed by the government from time to time on the project. It was we are doing this and we had no opportunity for input in that.
Every time the loan guarantee was increased over the last four years, and it happened on a number of occasions, Mr. Speaker, the government's excuse was we are waiting for federal money to come and help us pay for the Deh Cho Bridge project, to be a partner with the Deh Cho Bridge project. So it was very surprising back in May when the Premier alluded to the fact that the bridge was going to go ahead. He came to committee and said the bridge is going to go ahead. We don't have any federal money, but the bridge is going to go ahead. How are we going to pay for it? We are going to roll that money in, the $1.8 million, plus we are going to spend another $2 million a year on the Deh Cho Bridge.
We talk about consensus government, we talk about trying to get people the information we need to make decisions. In this instance, Mr. Speaker, and again it's nothing personal, but the government failed in its obligation, in my mind, to come back and consult with Regular Members. Not only did it fail to consult with Regular Members, Mr. Speaker, it failed to consult with the same people it consulted with in 2002 and 2003 when the project was anticipated to cost 60 to 70 million dollars and tolls were anywhere between $4.50 and $5 a tonne.
Things have changed tremendously over the past five years, Mr. Speaker. As my colleagues know, the project is now $150 million. Tolls are now going to be $6.75 a tonne. By the time the project is completed in 2010, the tolls will be over $7. The government has been unable to come back to Regular Members and say there won't be an adverse effect to the cost of living to over half of its citizens here in the territory, in Yellowknife, Behchoko and the rest of the North Slave region. I think the government has to deliver on the information. That has been all I have been asking for for the past four months: a similar cost-benefit analysis, as we've done in 2002, on the new numbers.
The government made quite a stir when it launched the macroeconomic policy shop, one that I felt at the time we probably didn't need to hire five more people to study that in an office in the Department of Finance. Mr. Speaker, if I could, I am thinking that this bridge project would have been a perfect opportunity to test the waters on that macroeconomic policy shop. Let them run the numbers. Let them see us spending $150 million on a bridge as something the government should be doing. I know some of that would be offset by tolls, Mr. Speaker, but certainly the government, in the process, should have done much, much better. We just haven't had a chance. To me, that's the bottom line here.
We haven't had a chance to discuss competing infrastructure projects here in the Territories. We know in all our constituencies we have competing demands out there. How does the bridge jump to the front of the queue? How does that $150 million become more important than other projects in the Northwest Territories? We haven't had that type of discussion, Mr. Speaker. We haven't had that level of discussion. That is why the motion is here again today.
This is very similar to the motion I moved in May asking for more information. I know 48 hours from now, a deal will be signed in Fort Providence. The horse is out of the barn, folks. It's gone. The government has made that decision. Like I said the other day, I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Premier, for Cabinet and I really want to be able to stand next to them on Friday in Fort Providence. It's a great day for Fort Providence. It's going to be a huge economic opportunity in Fort Providence. For that, that's one good thing that's coming out of this; but the process has been flawed, Mr. Speaker. I don't understand how the government can rely on five-year-old legislation to make decisions that are going to affect governments for the next 35 years without consulting Members of this House.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to comments other Members may have, but this may be too little too late. Again, I want to send the message. I have been consistent all along. All I want is proof and evidence. That's all I want. It's nothing personal. I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.