Mahsi cho. [English translation not provided.]

Today I would like to ask questions of the Minister of Transportation regarding Highway 6. With the government’s recent announcement of cutbacks, I am concerned a much-needed improvement to Highway 6 will now be set back to a much further future date. Currently, Highway 6 is not scheduled to receive any major improvements in the next 20 years, according to a capital needs assessment report. Twenty-plus years is much too long for this highway. The section of road that I’m concerned about is a 54-kilometre stretch from almost Pine Point leading to a highway all the way to Fort Resolution.

My question, Mr.

Speaker, is: with the recent

cutbacks, will the Minister commit to looking at placing a higher priority on the major work for the much-needed improvement to the 54-kilometre unpaved section of highway between Pine Point and Fort Resolution?

Mr.

Speaker, I

understand there’s a longstanding need to convene construction and improve the road between Fort Resolution and Pine Point, the one the Member referenced, and the section of highway to Fort Resolution. This section of highway is very close to lake level, and that can be quite unstable, especially during the springtime.

Mr.

Speaker, the Department of Transportation

estimates that the total job would cost up to $56 million. I’m continually looking to see how my department can begin the priority work required to improve the road safety on Highway 6 to ensure Fort Resolution residents have good access to potential future mining and other employment opportunities in the South Slave.

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister seriously look at increasing the current capital amounts scheduled for Highway 6 so the job can be completed?

All capital projects went through the planning process. I am looking at all areas across the Northwest Territories to see about investment in our infrastructures in transportation. I would be happy to work with any Member of the House to see where we can provide safe, reliable

transportation needs in terms of providing for our people to transport goods in the North.

Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware if the Minister has had an opportunity recently to drive the 54 kilometres of unpaved highway between Fort Resolution and Pine Point. But I’d like to ask the Minister if he would commit to driving the unpaved section of the highway to Fort Resolution on Highway 6 with me in May so he can see firsthand the condition of that highway.

I thank the Member from Tu Nedhe for the invitation. I look forward to driving with the Member in the springtime or the summer. I propose that we drive when it’s a convenient time for both of us and when it seems most beneficial to the people of Fort Resolution. I’ll be happy to also meet with the people in Fort Resolution and the contractors and to discuss some of the issues of Highway 6 with the Member once we’ve finished driving that section of the road.

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to wade in on the bridge again today. I have questions.

How can a piece of legislation passed two Assemblies ago, which envisioned a self-financing $50 million capital project, possibly still be a go — with a green light — today in the 16th Assembly,

having more than tripled in price? Almost all the parameters of the project have changed, and never once has an opportunity been given back to the Members to confirm that they actually support this project. In a public government, in 2008, with Members duly elected to run the Northwest Territories, how can such a thing have been allowed to happen?

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what’s driving the bridge anymore. I could tell you some people in governments long past who might have been driving the bridge. But I don’t know what’s driving the bridge anymore. I don’t know who wants the bridge. I don’t know who supports it. I don’t know who wants to pay for it.

Interjection.

Well, I see we have one supporter.

You know, when we talk about government cuts…. CBC went out to the street, and people heard about reductions in government spending. They said, “Why are we building a Deh Cho Bridge, then?” The Union of Northern Workers have said, “Why are we building a Deh Cho Bridge?” The people who are going to be paying the tolls have said, “Why are we building a Deh Cho Bridge?” I’d like to ask the

Premier, or anybody who wants to answer over there: what is now driving this project?

Mr. Speaker, first let’s take care of one of the rumours that are out there. The reduction scenario that we’re planning to work around and targeting is not the funded Deh Cho Bridge project. Some have heard rumours out there, so let’s clear that out of the way.

The fact is that the legislation that was developed and passed through this House defined the parameters of the project. The parameters talked about a number of factors. Those factors have been made public, as we’ve heard already. Members have been briefed on a number of those areas.

There is a provision that would come back, for example, to a vote. But it would be after the fact to establish the funding to flow through O&M payments through the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. But nothing stopped even the previous Assembly, because at this point there is an agreement in place that is driving this project. It is a concession agreement that is in place, a funding agreement. Lending institutions have signed letters. So that project is moving along as long as it meets those parameters of decisions made by a previous government.

Nothing stopped Members of the past government from removing that piece of legislation. That’s what it would have required. But that wasn’t done at that time. We are now in the 16th Assembly where that

agreement is in place, and it’s moving along.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is absolutely right: this project is going to require a vote after the fact to appropriate the funds. And it is way after the fact, because the facts have completely changed.

You know, this is about government expenditure. This project is going to call for $2 million a year, at least, indexed over 35 years, plus $750,000 a year for administration to collect the toll. Can we put a motion in the House, here, to kill this legislation today? You said we could have done it in the last government — remove this legislation from the books. What about a vote now?

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the 16th Assembly making a motion to get rid of that act

would place us in a higher liability or risk mode, because agreements are out there. A concession agreement is in place. They’re meeting their targets. The liability would go beyond our loan guarantee of $9 million at this point.

Well, Mr.

Speaker, if we

could have gotten a copy of that concession agreement, we might have sought our own legal opinion about whether or not our liability would

have been extended with the signing of the concession agreement.

The Premier is asserting that for us now to kill the legislation, to kill the project, would expose us to some liability. He’s obviously privy to information that we are not privy to, because we haven’t even seen the concession agreement yet, never mind voted on it or supported it.

Anyway, I’d like to know what the Auditor General thinks of this whole process. There must be, someplace out there, an independent opinion that could look at what has transpired here and give us an opinion about it.

Would the Premier please give us a copy of the concession agreement so we can get an independent legal opinion? Please give us a copy of all the other documentation to go to the Auditor General, so that we can say, “Does this meet the standard of transparency and accountability for a public government?”

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that during the normal review of our public accounts, the Auditor General looks at the accounts of this government and requests information from time to time when they see something they’d like to pay some attention to. The loan guarantee in this amount has been looked at and information has been requested, and we’re working with her office to provide that information.

I’ve also committed to Members to provide information around this project and am getting that together so that I can provide that information to Members.

Unfortunately, it’s too little, too late, in my opinion. Unlike my colleague Mr. Ramsay, who keeps saying he supports the bridge, I don’t support the bridge anymore. I want to have been given a chance to decide how I wanted to spend $2 million indexed over the next 35 years, and I was not given the opportunity to vote on that expenditure and that commitment.

I would like to ask the Premier if he will please make available to the Members the legal opinion that was solicited by Cabinet which says that our liability has been extended by the signing of that concession agreement.

Mr. Speaker, number one, I haven’t asked the department to provide a legal opinion. We know the facts that are on the table. We’ve been around this Assembly, this floor — a number of us, at least — for a lot of years and know the process.

Looking at the information available, I’ve made the comment…. The fact is that if we were to make a move now, we are increasing our liability in that

area. Do I need a legal opinion? I think we could go get one, but I didn’t seek that. I did look at our risk position on this whole project, as this topic has been around for quite a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up where my colleague Mrs. Groenewegen left in questioning the Premier on the Deh Cho Bridge project.

Now I want to talk about process, if I could. I want to go back to something the Premier said the last time we met in November, and that was that he was going to commit to a review of the process that allowed the Government of the Northwest Territories to sign a concession agreement committing it to a $160 million project three days prior to the Territorial election. As we know, during a transition period, when governments are in transition and there’s an election ongoing, governments are not supposed to do anything substantial and commit funds. They did, three days prior to the election.

I’d like to ask the Premier where exactly is that process, and how is he going to involve Regular Members of this House in that process so that this type of thing never happens again?

Mr. Speaker, one simple way of doing it is never to enact another piece of legislation that drives one particular project. That is an avenue, so that would always come before Members of the House. But like every act we’ve put in place, that act, once passed, becomes a living document of the Assembly, and Assemblies to come, until it’s removed from the books.

The review that I committed to…. We will have it done very soon, and I’ll be able to share that with Members and sit down with them at that point.

I would like to thank the Premier for that. I would like to ask the Premier about the review that he’s undertaking. Who is involved in that review? I wonder if the Audit Bureau is involved in that type of review, or is it the Premier’s Office that’s doing that review? Who are the players that are involved in trying to come up with recommendations on that process?

Mr. Speaker, the process starts off within the Executive and working with the appropriate departments to get the information, and at that point deciding where we proceed and what avenues we go through.

Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me that it’s a review of the process to review the process, so we’re actually going to think about how to do things so that we can try to do something. Maybe I’m a little bit mistaken in that analysis, but I’d like to

again ask the Premier: who is going to do the review of the process, and when are we going to get some information on that work that’s been done? I just don’t want a high-level analysis done by the Department of Executive. I want something substantial, and I think the Audit Bureau should be involved.

Mr. Speaker, when I talked about looking at the process, I was looking at the project timelines, information that flowed between particular departments to committees, to this Assembly — whether it was through supplementary process — and decisions made right to the point of the concession agreement being signed.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, we have to state that but for the fact that this concession agreement was signed as late as it was, it is politically one that is being debated. The fact is that the numbers being used today were shared with Members of the past Assembly prior to that concession agreement being signed.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier talks about numbers being provided to Members of the last government. That brings me to my next question. Where is the detailed, updated cost-benefit analysis of the project, which Members have never seen? We saw one five years ago when the project was $60 million, but the government has yet to provide this House with a detailed, updated cost-benefit analysis. Where is that?

Mr. Speaker, I did receive a letter from the committee regarding this project. They requested a number of pieces of information, and we are very close to having that all together and providing it to the committee. We’ll have that before this session is done.

My question is for the Minister of Finance.

There have been many backroom and many front-room discussions in the week since the Minister announced the government’s new fiscal strategy. They’ve been held by Members of this House, members of the public service, members of service organizations, members of the general public and members of the media. We all have an opinion on the announcement. Some are approving and some are not. Unfortunately, many opinions are based on hearsay and minimal information.

I’d like to ask the Minister of Finance about the proposed $135 million budget reduction. Is that over a two-year period, and is there a second element in the fiscal strategy to reinvest some of the money found in the budget reduction?