Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to make a number of comments relative to this motion.
Unlike other Members, I do feel that we’ve received adequate substantiation for this project. From what I hear periodically, this project has been around for quite some time, although it hasn’t been in place as a capital project. But there’s been a need for office space in Inuvik for longer than the last year and a half, from what I’m given to understand.
One of the strong factors for me is that if we build the building ourselves, we will save, give or take,
$38 million over the 20 year life of this particular building. I’ve heard Members say that we’re throwing money away at this building by spending $20 million on it. Well, I’d have to counter with we’re throwing $38 million away if we lease the building. I have a real concern that if we lease the building, we’re…. You know, in response to constituents, how do I explain that I okayed an extra $38 million in cost?
I do feel that the market disruption study is something that should have been done, albeit the sort of informal study that was done indicated that there was very little space available. But I think it probably would be a good idea for us to put as standard practice that anytime we build a building in any community, we do a market disruption survey or a market disruption study. I think it’s something that should be part of the substantiation of any project.
The other thing that I think would assist Members…. I mentioned it briefly the other day, but I want to mention it again. I think that in order for us to sort of quantify projects and to fit them into a neat little box within our heads, it would really assist if projects come forward with a priority on them. I noticed earlier that small capital projects, I think it was, are prioritized from 1 to 5, and the same thing needs to be done for large projects. If we’re looking at a project that is priority 1 and we’re comparing it to a project that’s been identified as priority 2, that certainly gives us some indication that the two projects have been considered, and one is more important than the other.
I also, at the risk of being called naïve or foolish or whatever, hear the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works when they state that they will, as much as possible, move the Hay River project forward earlier than what’s in here. That may be at my peril. Don’t make me look bad, you guys.
The bottom line for me is at this point: I can’t support the deletion of this project. I think it’s necessary. I think the Hay River project is also necessary, and I’m really disappointed that it was moved back. I certainly would be open to the government coming forward later on in 2009 and saying: Hay River is ready to go; give us some money. I’d be all for that. With that, that’s all I have, Mr. Chair.