Mr. Speaker, we have been consulting with everybody involved. For a number of years now, the concept of vulnerable water, vulnerable projects and one contract was something we wanted to do. We’ve spoken with the Association of Communities; we’ve spoken with the local government administrators of the Northwest Territories; we’ve spoken with every community that’s involved in this proposal. We will continue to do so.

I by no means want to have the Members expect that I would speak to one before the other. If there is going to be a briefing on what has transpired here, I’ll offer it to all the Members, and I will make sure the communities are informed of what is happening. We don’t anticipate making any changes at this point, as the Member has pointed out.

Mr. Speaker, the department has had the full support of myself as the MLA, has full support from the hamlet of Aklavik and the people of Aklavik to get on with this. We’ve continued to support this project on the understanding of where this project is at, but if there is going to be any delay, or basically any innuendoes of cancelling this project or redoing the whole project, we’re not in support of that.

I’d like to, again, ask the Minister that every effort be made to fast-track this project, get that water treatment in place. The community needs this piece of infrastructure. We’ve been waiting for two years now because of cost overruns and delays. It’s two years past the date we were told we were going to get it.

I’d like to ask the Minister again, knowing that he has support of the MLA and the community: let’s get on with it.

I’m trying to get on with it. We are quite excited about this new concept of bundling projects. We think we have to be creative and innovative as we move forward with some of our challenges facing some of our communities in terms of providing infrastructure. Designing, implementing, operating and all those things are some things that are challenging every community in terms of capacity and getting these projects underway.

This is a new way of doing business. I can understand some Members being concerned. However, negotiations are ongoing. The project hasn’t been signed off yet; we haven’t made the final decision. I need to take that to the next step. Whether that goes forward or not, I can’t say where

that’ll end up at this point, but I will commit to sharing that information as much as we can with all the Members and the communities.

Mr. Speaker, the economic benefit of this project to the community is enormous. Whenever projects are bid in our communities, the benefit that flows to the local contractors for site work and labour work — in most cases that’s all we see anyhow, but for us that’s a boost in our economy.

Again, the construction contractors in this community are waiting for this project to take place. They’ve been waiting for some time. Again, I keep telling them all, “It’s coming; it’s coming.” I’d like to ensure that the Minister makes sure that we do stick on track, try to get this project on the ground this summer. It’s a crucial piece of infrastructure that we need in our communities.

Once again, I can certainly relate to the Member’s messages and some of his recommendations. We have had all the communities make those points and reaffirm those points on a number of occasions. We’ll do what we can. We are quite concerned about where we are with replacing water plants. This is a possible remedy to that, though. We’ll follow it up.

Definitely, after going through this process, I think the Government of the Northwest Territories…. If we’re going to venture out beyond the typical tender or a fee process we normally go through, we will have to come up with a specific policy for dealing with projects of this nature.

For example, I’ve talked about the Mackenzie Valley Highway. There’s hydro potential in the North. None of those would be able to be done within our existing confines. Realizing what we’ve had to deal with through this process, I would absolutely agree. We need to develop an absolutely clear process so everybody knows what happens at what stage of events.

Mr. Speaker, in a previous answer to a question, the Premier basically threw out the challenge to have an open debate about the Deh Cho Bridge project. That’s like inviting us to a duel, you know, with no gun.

We’re absolutely bound by confidentiality; we can’t say anything. Here we are now — the poor suckers who got to read the concession agreement — and we’re sitting here trying to ask questions in the public interest, but we are bound by confidentiality because of the restrictions that were put on us. We cannot be transparent and open with the people of the Northwest Territories, who are extremely interested in this project.

The Premier challenges us to an open debate. How does he propose we could have an open debate when even we, as Members of this House, couldn't get information on this until after every significant date had passed? And yet we want the public to partake and watch us in an open debate? How does the Premier propose such a thing could happen when we can't get copies of the schedule? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, for the process of clarity, for the 16th Legislative Assembly, my offer

is to debate the fact that we support the Deh Cho Bridge proceeding.

I'm not willing to debate schedule by schedule. We've never done that with any other contract in the Government of the Northwest Territories — at least, that I recall in my days — on something like that.

I've sat down with committee. I've provided them with all the information that has been requested. Yes, there are some outstanding schedules. Those lists of schedules that were outstanding were provided to the Members as well.

Part of the duties we have — as we heard earlier, regarding another bundled project within the Government of the Northwest Territories — is if we're going to come to a very public forum and debate what business is put on the line, then what business would be ready to put its numbers on the table, knowing that it could be undermined by the next proposal that comes forward?

One of the issues, or primary functions, of government is the way we do business. The fact is, in a consensus-style government, when you talk to other jurisdictions — the budget process, the contracting issues — the opposition may raise an issue, but all they can do is make an argument that it was a bad decision, because the majority rules in all cases.

We know a majority doesn't rule. That's why, in this style of government, we share all the information we can, and that does, by fact of consensus, put all Members under the confidentiality of the rules we operate with. If we want to stick to that system of governance, then we must honour the processes that are in place.

I’m trying to do my part with this whole process, so I offered up the opportunity: as the 16th Legislative

Assembly, do we support this project or not? I’m not ready to go and debate line by line, as two of the Members would like to have done in this Assembly.

Mr.

Speaker, it is

unfathomable that this Premier can say we should have a debate on one simple question alone: do we support this project or not? How could we possibly say whether we support the project or not if we did not have access to the details of it? That's like saying, “I'll buy a house, and I won't look at it or inspect it, and I won't understand any of the terms of the financing, but I'll just….” It is “Do I want a house, or don't I want a house?” That's how simply he’s putting the question.

And to the fact that, yes, we do have the information — yes, we do have it now, after the fact. After the concession agreement is signed, yes, now we have it. After it’s too late to turn back, yes, now we have the cost-benefit analysis. The Premier admitted they went and signed the concession agreement without the benefit of the cost-benefit analysis that was updated.

Is the Premier suggesting that we could actually have a reasonable discussion about whether we support the bridge or not without the relevant facts related to the financing and all risks in this?

Mr. Speaker, the facts have been out on the table for, I would say — at least the latest increases — close to a year.

During the last government, when the project that we've heard so much about…. When the act was put in place and talked about a $55 million to $70 million project, it is now identified, and was identified in the 15th Assembly, as $165 million.

The government’s fiscal piece of that is the money from the ferries and ice crossing. In fact, the additional money required was made public — the $2.28 million — before any agreements were signed. Those fundamental pieces are there, have been public, and have been questioned in this House.

If the Member wants to debate, “Well, okay, let’s try to renegotiate the percentage the bank will charge us,” that's another factor that is part of a deal. But the key principles, the fundamentals, of this project are laid bare, I would say.

Mr. Speaker, I am an elected Member of this House. I've been here since the 14th Assembly. If I am not aware of the fact…. And

it was — let’s be honest — two weeks ago tomorrow that we actually got a copy of the concession agreement. This is a $160 million project. I didn't know, until we got the concession agreement two weeks ago, that our government was in fact indemnifying, guaranteeing — call it whatever you want — a $160 million loan. I didn't know that. I’m a Member of this Legislative Assembly and I didn't know. How could the public possibly say whether or not they support this project?

To the point that everything has been completely laid out there: will the Premier agree and concede that this information, which is extremely significant, has never been made public — not to the public, let alone the Members of this Assembly — until two weeks ago?

Mr. Speaker, she was waving a piece of paper there. I don't know what I would be agreeing to, if that's a briefing note from Research or an active part of the concession agreement, which would be problematic.

The fact is, the fundamentals that the Government of the Northwest Territories needs to be concerned about, and is concerned about…. That's why we have entered into this long process of ensuring and double-checking. In fact, the lending organizations themselves have followed through this. An independent engineer…. We had an opinion lawyer on the actual process of how our FAA worked and so on and so forth.

The process has been there. The critical numbers we know about. The $165 million has been known about. Tolls will pay a part of that. We will pay the other part. That's been known. And we've also known that it is set at a rate that would grow according to, I believe, the 2005 dollar value escalated at that point, going forward. So that's forced growth as we deal with it in every other business that we do.

To the simple fact: the concession agreement has been made public, or given to Members, after they requested it from myself, as Premier of the 16th Legislative Assembly. I've honoured that commitment. But the fundamentals of that project have been public from well before the 16th Assembly election.

Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the many pressing needs of the people of the Northwest Territories for everything from better education, to homes and houses in our communities, to health services — we have no

doctors going into Nunakput, we heard today — in view of all those pressing needs, does the Premier not think that he has a duty to very clearly tell people, before we commit to it, that this government was entering into an obligation and a liability for $165 million?

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Government of the Northwest Territories would backstop this project has been known from the early days of the fact that the act was being discussed. That is why an act was put in place, because under existing processes, it would be very difficult to deal with a project of this nature. The fact that we're trying to get P3 money from the federal government, to try to help this project along….

We realize, and I would be negligent in my duty if, looking at the numbers, standing up and giving the message to the people of the Territories, “We're going to have to live within our means.” Look at this project. Those numbers have been available. We know that it’s in the neighbourhood of $4 million, when you take the ferry crossing, ice crossing, and the additional amount that was made public, to carry on above and beyond the tolls that are established. That is something that would be looked at.

The fact is that the majority of vehicles coming across that bridge would be from industry, and they would be paying their share through this process. If we didn't have this process, then we would be looking at trying to fund it internally from what we have. In that case, we would have to compete with the rest of the projects in the Territories. Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to further

question the Minister of Transportation on some of the items he raised in his comments to me.

I think he said the Deh Cho Bridge organization at Fort Providence was chasing $50 million as one of the potential sources of revenue. I’d first like to get some clarification on that. When shall we get some feedback if this is going to be a reality, and when was this applied for?

Mr.

Speaker, my

understanding is the $50 million request to the federal government was put in during the 15th Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, my constituent raised a concern about an infusion of federal cash, as I’ve highlighted already, and it sounds like some work is being done. I certainly look forward to it being successful.

The other issue that they raised — which I think is a very good one — is how is this going to play out on

the tolls? Are we expecting an adjustment in the potential tolls being under $7 at this point, with the cost of the bridge? Does it have an effect on the tolls if we do get the $50 million applied to the greater cost of the bridge? What is going to be the adjustment on the tolls, and what are the tolls today?

Mr. Speaker, should we get a favourable response from the federal government in terms of the $50 million that has been requested by the Deh Cho corporation, this would certainly significantly lower our toll fees; it would significantly lower our contribution to the bridge; and it will certainly have an effect in terms of the basic toll fees, which are under $7.

Mr. Speaker, a number of us — although, obviously the Premier knows very well, not all of us — are in favour of the bridge on this side. I am certainly in favour of it, and that hasn’t changed since I came back to this House.

The constituent that I am raising this point for is definitely in favour of the bridge as well, but they are concerned about the bread-and-butter issues of this bridge.

As I have always understood it, the tolls are set in such a way that according to local industry, it is going to cost about $250 for a truck to cross this bridge. How will that affect your milk and your eggs? That's the real issue. Regular folks care about bread-and-butter issues.

I want some assurance from this Minister that the tolls are on track. Can he make sure that they are still at the original price, which was just under $7 per ton?

Mr.

Speaker, my

understanding is that the bread-and-butter issues will certainly go down, in terms of this bridge being put in. We will have a number of factors to be considered, and I would let the Member know that once the dust has settled on this whole issue, in terms of sitting down and going through the exact numbers…. If I quote a number here, it may be taken and used in future discussions. I want to say to the Member and the rest of the House that the numbers that we have looked at…. I want to give assurance to his constituent that certainly, the whole goal is to bring the cost of living down, through this project.

As the Premier has indicated, the cost of the tolls would be looked upon by other resource developments happening in the North Slave Region.

I want to say that in terms of a project of this magnitude, we certainly rely heavily on the federal government. The community of Fort Providence and this government are going after funding in

terms of putting key infrastructure in the Northwest Territories to reduce the cost of living in the Northwest Territories. That is where we will continue pushing on the bigger picture of bringing in some good infrastructure. That will bring the cost of living down for all people of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t going to ask another question, but I’ll have to ask one more question here.

What evidence has the Minister of Transportation got at his disposal that is going to indicate to him that the cost of living will not go up with the building of the Deh Cho Bridge at Fort Providence?

Mr. Speaker,

my

understanding is that the outcome of the Co-op study here in Yellowknife has shown that the cost of living will go down in Yellowknife.

Now, I will be happy to sit down with the Member and any other Members of the House to show this study, as done by the Co-op, is an analysis in terms of the cost of living if we should — and when — get the bridge built across the Mackenzie River.