The G.N.W.T. is providing certainty to the lenders. This means that we stand behind the Deh Cho Bridge in terms of ensuring that this bridge is built. The Deh Cho Bridge Corporation’s rate of return is based on delivering the project as designed, on schedule and on budget.

I was previously directing my questions to the Premier on the Deh Cho Bridge. Maybe I should be directing them to the Minister of Transportation.

My questions are with respect to the $9 million loan guarantee we put in place. Were we privy to what the $9 million to date was actually spent on? Did we have a role to play in approving what that initial $9 million to date was spent on?

In the area of the guarantee itself, the guarantee is something that’s been in the process, has been updated a number of times, through the work of this government in the sense of the relationship with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. They’ve been working with the bank.

That guarantee doesn't kick in unless the bank itself calls that loan. For us to have a direct involvement in what they’ve spent on, what areas they’ve done, that would be limited. I don't have that information. But we do stand behind that guarantee until it gets called. Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, this loan

guarantee started off at about $3 million, and it was extended and increased at several different points. I would find it very unusual if a public government could guarantee a loan for something where they did not have any say or control or knowledge of what it was being used for and that they would not be at the table.

Do we want to go from $3 million to $6 million to $9

million? Wouldn't the Deh Cho Bridge

Corporation have had to come back to our government and justify an increase in our loan guarantee with what it was that they were spending the money on?

Mr. Speaker, yes, when they came forward with requests for increases, they did have to justify why we would want to do that and why we would carry it forward to the Assembly for approvals on supplementary requirements.

You can go back to the supplementary appropriations to see when loan guarantees were put in place or increased through operations of the House.

The actual work done was bridge design, looking at those areas. No doubt, lots of lawyers’ fees on the negotiations process with banks and so on.

There is a list. We know what they were working on. We were knowledgeable of that. When they came forward for further substantiation or requests for increases, we had to ensure we had the information if we would agree that we would increase that loan guarantee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd be interested in knowing who approved the loan guarantees, because let’s be very clear: I was never part of a decision to approve a loan guarantee.

Under the Financial Administration Act, when a loan guarantee is put in place or is increased, there is an obligation to notify Members, but I don't ever recall voting on the increase to the loan guarantee. So somebody must have been acting on our behalf in the interests of the government and in the public interest to have approved those. I'd like to know who that was. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the process of loan guarantees is done through the Financial Management Board, notification to Members. If there's an actual expenditure that occurs as a result of that, that would fall to the supplementary appropriation that comes to this House. I'd have to go back to look, because at one point the interest had to be paid out as part of the process. So I’m not sure if that came to the House or not, but I recall some debate on it. Thank you.

Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you. You know, to the public that's listening to this, the semantics here are off. Let’s be very clear: there is a vast difference between approving and being advised of or being notified of. I want to tell you that that's all that was going on for us over here: we were notified of it. We did not approve of it. Let’s be very clear. I mean, just because we were notified of it doesn't mean we agreed with it.

I'd like the Premier to clearly confirm that, in fact, the FMB had the authority to extend the loan

guarantee and increase it on the grounds of notification to Members only.

Mr. Speaker, the Member is correct in the fact that any loan guarantee established falls under the authority of the FMB. The process also lays out the notification of Members, and that process is followed.

The reference I made to a potential supplementary appropriation dealt with one piece, a small piece, of that, but all the information would have been made available. I'll have to confirm that. I'm going on memory at this point. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, continuing on with the feeding frenzy here because there's so much food in the water, because there are so many questions to be asked, I'd like to ask a question about the concession agreement. I've been one of the privileged few to have had the opportunity to see an embargoed copy of it as a Member of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure.

I understand from earlier questions today that the Premier, the Minister of Finance, will be signing the schedules that are attached to the concession agreement by the 22nd of this month. As to an

attachment to the concession agreement, though, I haven't seen it. In fact, they haven't been attached to the concession agreement that was made available for me to see.

Given the Premier’s claim to transparency and disclosure on this issue and having apparently a spotless record of providing this information, will he commit to showing us these schedules at his earliest possible convenience so that we can see them and it won’t be a complete surprise when they finally are made public? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I’d have to

clarify. The schedules the Members are talking about as part of the concession agreement are one process. The instruments — I guess that is the proper term — of the lending agency to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation that we are involved with and that the Department of Transportation is involved with are the things that I talked about: the banks needing to proceed with this project and having a timeline of the 22nd . That’s the piece that

I’m referring to. That is all part of the due process that is already in place. That’s about to happen. We’re waiting on the lawyers’ final work on that area and looking to move forward with this process. One of those would be the final signing of these instruments. Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, instruments,

schedules, declarations, call them what you will: this House would like to see those before they are signed, rather than after.

I’m asking the Premier: will he provide those for our review before they are signed? Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, maybe I’ll ask a

question back. The fact is that this Assembly feels it hasn’t had the opportunity to debate this in its full length. Concession agreements, schedules, projects that we do, whether they’re $4 million, $40 million or $80 million contracts for infrastructure we have in our communities, or leases — we have 10-year leases on infrastructure for office spaces, whether in this city or other communities — go through a process but don’t get reviewed by committee on a contract-by-contract scenario.

In this case, Members are asking for a line-by-line review. We’ve provided that information. I can’t see doing that. We’re already involved, and we’re not extending any more commitment than, in fact, just signing off what’s already been part of the process and having the banks finally satisfied that this can proceed from their lending the money to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and then allowing the bridge to proceed.

At that stage I’m aware that those documents are in final review now and potentially being sent up sometime tomorrow for review and signature as a final sort of step to this. Now, does committee want the veto on that? I’m not prepared at this point, because it’s a normal part of the process, but if committee wants to sit a couple of more days, let’s have a debate in this House. Let’s finally bring this to closure. I would say that if this Assembly is in agreement with this project, then we can finally conclude this and get on with business. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, you know, I wish we were talking about a $40 million, $60 million or $80 million project here, but we’re not even talking about a $160 million project. The latest is $240 million, what our final costs will be, and those are without any of the liabilities that we are likely to experience.

Mr. Speaker, all Members of this House have been elected by the people, and to me that means the people of the Northwest Territories have invested their trust in me as their representative, and I think that’s true for every Member in this House.

Will the Premier start to trust the Members of this House like the people of the Northwest Territories do? Will he give us that trust, show us copies of these and give us our chance to have input into this process, which apparently has been limited from the word go? Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, we must be careful what we say in this House. I mean, some Members have come up with their own figure of what this potentially costs. The $242 million figure is someone else’s math work. What we’ve put on the table is the total amount of $165 million. The tolls will pay a significant portion of that. As the act itself identified, we would be taking funds from the ice crossing and the ferries going up to close to $2 million. The FMB of the day agreed to a further extension of $2.28 million as a ceiling for putting this in, based on the dollar values of when that agreement was put in place.

So we’re at the stage where we’re at. Apparently, as the Member is using — it’s not “apparently.” The fact is that we’ve shared, and this project has undergone significant review from a number of parties. The lending agent itself went and got a review. They’re the ones at risk for $165 million if, in fact, they want to lend this money to this project and to make sure it’s a valid project. An independent engineer has been on this file looking at that from another source. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not telling the entire story, and he is misleading the House.

Interjection.

Mrs. Groenewegen on a point of order. What is your point of order?

The Member has raised a point of order. I’m going to allow some debate on this point of order. To the point of order, the Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In this whole scenario I’ve provided much information to the questions in this House: the dollar values attached, who is at risk, the fact of agreeing with the Members that, as the G.N.W.T., we are in fact backstopping this. But the banks are lending the money. They are at risk of lending the money to a project that is a go or no-go. So that’s not misleading the House, Mr.

Speaker. That was

stating a fact.

There are additional facts to this: that, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, as stated publicly in this House, this process is in place and

that we as the Government of the Northwest Territories — and that’s why these questions have come up so often — are going to be a direct linkage or appendage to this project by in fact putting the pieces in place, by the FMB decisions that have been made, by the direction given in the establishment of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation Act.

Mr. Speaker, I may have to look at the Hansard myself to see if the Member is imputing some motive here on my behalf. Thank you.

To the point of order, the Hon. Member for Thebacha.

Mr. Speaker, as I understand our rules of debate, it says under section 23, “In a debate a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if the Member . . . (j) charges another Member with uttering a deliberate falsehood.” My understanding is that the terms “You are deliberately misleading the House” constitute accusing the Member of uttering a falsehood. I

would suggest that the rule is clear: that is

inappropriate and unparliamentary. Thank you.

To the point of order, the honourable Member for Weledeh.