Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, again, appreciate those comments. I think we, indeed, need to take some serious looks at what’s happening. I mentioned the spiral into poverty that can happen in families and certainly when we have soaring costs in the midst of an economic recession and so on, these are the sorts of things that I’m talking about. There are more in the future. We need to plan for them. What is the Minister doing, though, Mr. Speaker, on the larger picture side to ensure that this government puts in place a mechanism to ensure that future Assemblies are not saddled with exactly this situation? Mahsi.

That broad policy issue and debate and discussion, I think, has to take place as a Legislature, to lay out whatever specific conventions or protocols that we need to have agreed to, to address the concerns raised by the Member. I know at this point we are doing our planning collectively, looking at June 2011 as the date up to which we could make substantive decisions, but after that we’re planning, recognizing that we’ll be moving into an election year. As a Cabinet, we’ve picked that particular date as a target for us that we’re working back from, recognizing that we’re going to be into a whole different mode after the last sitting of this Legislature before the election. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of ITI in terms of our recent meetings down in Vancouver and more particularly to the media people that were interested in the Northwest Territories such as the German newspaper and the Chinese television people there. They talked about the Northwest Territories and particularly important to the media person from Germany in terms of the tourism. I want to ask the Minister, in terms of the feedback that we received that was very positive from the media outlet in terms of promoting a place to visit, the Northwest Territories, is the Minister taking this type of feedback from the media outlet to track visitors from European or Asian countries, in terms of strengthening our territorial parks? The German newspaper did talk about, you know, is there a road and when are you going to build a road

-- Mackenzie Valley Highway -- to get into the valley here? Is the Minister going to be looking at a type of new strategy in terms of how do we attract visitors from Germany or the Asian countries?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister responsible for Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bob McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the benefit of Canada’s Northern House is our interaction with national and international media. Certainly the interview we did with the German reporter gave us a lot of insight as to what the German people would find of interest in visiting the Northwest Territories, understanding that there are a lot of German tourists already visiting the Northwest Territories. Basically I think we understand that Yukon has direct flights from Germany to Whitehorse and so they get a lot of German tourists in that fashion. So I think that is an area that we are, and have been, investigating and we do have a person that is working on our behalf in Europe to promote tourism to the Europeans, because that’s a very important sector. I believe that, as a reporter said, if we can get the Germans that are in Whitehorse, drive to Yellowknife, then fly back to Germany would be a tremendous attraction. So, certainly, we want to examine that possibility.

I was particularly interested with respect to this reporter when he was doing the interview with us talking about the unknown Sahtu region. The German people are very avid hikers. He talked about the hiking that could be done in the Northwest Territories. He was very interested in how to get into the Sahtu. He talked about the Mackenzie Valley Highway. In terms of that type of interest out there and attracting European visitors, would the Minister, with respect to all the feedback we’ve received regarding the Northwest Territories, take this to look at a strategy that will attract infrastructure and facilities in the regions that maybe we could have more visitors?

We recognize that the Sahtu, the proposed CANOL Park, and the roads to Mile 222 are very spectacular. I think if we can work it out so that the German tourists who come off the plane and jump into RVs and drive down the road that we can find a way to get them to stop close to the NWT border and come into the Territories to do a hike,. I think if we can establish that type of product it would be very successful.

One comment I heard at the Northern House was they hope they can come to Yellowknife, jump on a plane, and visit a diamond mine. It really intrigues them, these diamond mines. That was one comment. We’re getting that type of interest at Northern House. I want to ask the Minister with respect to promoting the Sahtu that it would be nice to have these German people hike the CANOL Trail, jump in a boat, go up the Bear

River to visit the birthplace of ice hockey in Canada here, as we promoted it. It took a lot and had a lot of interest from the southern papers there in terms of this claim to fame here. I want to ask the Minister to see how much promotional awareness we have started over there to get this done in Northern House in terms of working with the people in this House here and the community of Deline.

We want to develop all of those tourism opportunities. Anything that will attract people to the Northwest Territories I think is very important. The amount of interest that was generated with regard to promoting Deline as the birthplace of hockey, there was a lot of interest in it and I think that will probably have reaction to it. I guess we’ll see what kind of media exposure we’ll get. I expect we’ll get some articles about it and I think that you’ll have to be prepared to defend that claim.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I’m prepared to lace up with the Minister of ITI and defend this claim to fame in terms of the birthplace of ice hockey in Canada. I want to ask the Minister in terms of all the good publicity we have and now with the Olympics that are going to start, I think it’s going to somewhat scale back and the focus is going to be on the athletes in that once we finish this whole event that’s happening in Vancouver we’ll be sitting down and looking at a bigger picture strategy in terms of how to go forward and continuing on the good work that this department has done on promoting the Northwest Territories. How do we go forward in bringing people into the Northwest Territories? Will we have a bigger strategy?

We are close to completing our Tourism 2010 Plan and we will be taking all the information we hear or are hearing from Canada’s Northern House and we are working with NWT Tourism to develop a 2015 tourism plan. Using that approach we will endeavour to take all these opportunities into account. Also, as the Member recognized yesterday, we were getting a lot of interest from the international media to come up and find out more about the Northwest Territories so that they can promote it even further.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to the opening address. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to use my reply to the opening address to talk about the Deh Cho Bridge. The

reason why it is important to talk about this today is that the people of the Northwest Territories have a right and need to know and understand what is happening with the Deh Cho Bridge Project because of its potential far-reaching impacts on the financial well-being of our Territory.

Looking at the history of this project, the enabling legislation called the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation Act was passed in the 14th Assembly. At that time

the legislation contemplated a $50 million bridge with a $6 per tonne toll that would finance the cost of the bridge. When the cost of the bridge more than tripled, the business case and cost-benefit analysis changed radically. In spite of this, because legislation passed several years earlier allowed it, the GNWT was able to proceed.

Amid much debate about the need for the bridge, whether it was a priority in the investment opportunities and demands for much needed capital infrastructure, the project was still pushed ahead. If anyone thinks that I did not question the advisability about proceeding with the bridge at every turn, this is just some of the Hansard of the questions and statements that I made in this House.

Our financial commitment started off in the form of loan guarantees. The first being for $3 million. We were told that would be the limit. Then it extended to $6 million, then to around $9 million. All the while Members were assured that this was the extent of the GNWT’s liability and the project would never proceed unless the federal government came to the table with significant financial contribution and underwriting.

All through this process the normal scrutiny of public transparency was blurred by the public-private partnership model which put the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation out front as the private partner, allowing the GNWT to avoid fulsome disclosure of the dealings surrounding the bridge in the name of corporate proprietary privacy.

Some would ask why would we have the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation acting as both the management teams and the proponents of this project. It was a way to keep the debt of the project off the books of the Government of the Northwest Territories, who at the time had a borrowing limit of $300 million. We have to be very clear about that. This was an attempt to build public infrastructure for public use while keeping that debt away from our balance sheet.

The argument was made for economic benefits that would flow to the community of Fort Providence from the construction, maintenance and management of the bridge. But as the proponent, the corporation had to have an equity stake in the project, equity which they had difficulty ever pulling together and at the 11th hour, even saw the

project’s general contractor, ATCON, coming to the

table to take advantage of the portion of the equity position in the bridge that they were about to build. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, how ATCON’s equity participation was going to benefit the people of Fort Providence or the Northwest Territories.

Now, there is some doubt as to whether every Member of Cabinet fully and wholeheartedly supported proceeding. That three days, Mr. Speaker, before the last territorial election, when the ability of Cabinet Ministers and outgoing Premier should have passed the point of making substantive decisions affecting the Territories, the Concession Agreement was signed.

Mr. Speaker, it took many months for the Concession Agreement to be shared with Members of the Legislative Assembly and only came out after literally hours of questioning on the floor of the House in attempt to get an idea of the GNWT’s liability associated with this major piece of capital infrastructure, larger than anything the GNWT had ever undertaken. A project, although financed through the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, was approved on the basis of a 100 percent guarantee of this territorial government. The GNWT went into this knowing full well that if anything went wrong, our government would be on the hook for the full amount of a loan. Mr. Speaker, this, in spite of my questions to Premier Roland dated February 20, 2008, in which -- and I quote from unedited Hansard, February 18, 2008 -- I had asked about the liability to the government. The Premier answered, “We are not guaranteeing the large loan. We have only guaranteed the $9 million.” The naysayers, as we were dubbed, were trying to ask questions we thought were responsible in the interest of holding the government accountable. That is our job, after all. We are often scoffed at and told, don’t worry. In spite of the many red flags along the way, we had no opportunity to intervene, just told to trust.

I remember being in the sound rooms at CBC Radio on a panel including the project manager, while he waved his arms in exasperation as I asked what I thought were reasonable questions. In spite of pressing demands on the time and budgets of the Department of Transportation for much needed infrastructure and maintenance across the North, very much energy and money from within the department has been expended on the bridge project. The total amount of that time and resources has never fully been disclosed, articulated or accounted for.

Mr. Speaker, who wanted the Deh Cho Bridge, you may wonder. No one that I know personally, except for some local contractors, understandably, who were able to secure some of the work on a project primarily dominated by southern services. The GNWT proceeded without a clear message of support from the constituents of the Northwest

Territories. I was told, don’t worry, the bridge will be paid for. Everyone north of the Mackenzie River crossing and freight coming to Hay River won’t be affected by any bridge toll. Federal employees would lose their isolated post allowance. Yellowknife and points north consumers would shoulder the higher cost of getting goods into their communities and the truck hauling, the diamond mines would pay. We thought, they thought a small way to catch your benefit from mining interests in the absence of royalties. It was all good. The project started out under some of the highest commodity prices in history and still in a time of heated economic activity, thus the high cost.

The Bridge Corporation or not, public private partnership or not, let’s call this what it was. It was a piece of public infrastructure financed in advance by a public government. The shell of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation was only a means, as I said before, of a way to keep the project off the books with the GNWT so that we can stay within our federally legislated borrowing limit. There is probably a good reason why we have a borrowing limit. The inception and management of this project is the perfect point in case.

Strange how a project sold as having a fixed design, a fixed contract and a fixed price has recently gone through a major design revision, a change of general contractor and -- I’m coming to the price part -- just two weeks ago we were told in this House that the project was still on budget, if somewhat behind schedule.

So why are we talking about the Deh Cho Bridge today? The bridge is half built. The original general contractor of the project is gone. The management team for the bridge is now being handled in house because the lender is, understandably, getting nervous. We are way past the point of no return. The government is going to come to the people of the Northwest Territories, through us, for approval of an additional $15 million of public funds. The sensitive negotiations that the Minister spoke of yesterday are not yet concluded. So who knows what other surprises await us in the future.

We are told, don’t worry. It will be recaptured by the toll. Don’t forget that we are still also on the hook for the administration and operation of the toll collection for the next 35 years, probably more than $4 million per year and indexed. As to recovering all of this from the toll, the business case for the tolls revenue was really suspect, even before the recession and before the potential for an alternative to diesel-generated power existed for the diamond mines.

Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that there were more pressing needs for our government’s attention and resources than a bridge at Fort Providence.

On a personal note, I have probably used the ferry and the ice bridge more times than anyone in this

room. I thought that, except for a brief interruption in the spring, it was a system that worked for me well. But somebody wanted to leave this Territory a legacy. We have been left with a legacy all right. I don’t think we have even begun to see the end of it yet. We have been sold a bill of goods so many times already on this project that don’t worry, trust us, this is the limit of our involvement, just isn’t believable anymore.

So what options do we have going forward? Why do I think it is important for people to understand clearly where we are at? Yesterday in the House I said that the costs and mismanagement of this project has the potential of being the biggest thing that has ever happened to this government. This is why we have fiscal forecast scenarios that have been prepared. Option one would approve the $15 million appropriation for the bridge. This option includes a few other assumptions going forward, keeping us from crashing into the debt wall, but still isn’t too pretty for the interests of other capital projects and spending in the next few years. The other options aren’t options at all, because they see us taking the bridge debt onto our books and taking this project over and operating it for what it really is: a government project. The reason why those two options aren’t options at all is because the government would either be over the debt limit or essentially bankrupt.

Mr. Speaker, I can’t predict what Ottawa will have to say about that. I was here in the 13th Assembly

when previous governments had racked up $150 million debt and then enacted the Deficit Elimination Act for the next Assembly. The first thing the 13th Assembly had to do was roll back costs and spending, including the rollback of all the public service salaries by 6 percent across the board and make deep spending cuts to balance future years’ budgets.

Some would ask, why not just mothball the project and pick it up again in the future in better economic times? The problem with that idea is that apparently the pillars would have to be removed. That would cost more than it cost to put them there in the first place. Terminating the lending agreement that we are backstopping would also cost about $50 million in interest and penalties. That idea of stopping the bridge at this juncture is probably a non-starter. But just in case…

…(inaudible)…

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. I am going to allow a little debate on this point of privilege. To the point of privilege. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Information was shared with committee and I did speak to the House yesterday and indicated to them that I felt that the information that had been shared really belongs to the public, because we expect feedback from our constituents on how we proceed and how we go forward with this. I think that I am just trying to explain that one of the options that people out there may think is available to us is not available to us and I did not use a specific amount. I talked about a ballpark amount and I, Mr. Speaker, believe that in representing the interest of the public to know what is before us, that it was acceptable to use this number. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the point of privilege. The honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also want to say a few words on the point of privilege. Mr. Speaker, while we have an obligation to provide Members with details, with explanations, with discussion of accountability, we also have an expectation for the Members of this House to act reasonably. Mr. Speaker, the Member has disclosed information that was provided to committee in confidence and I would submit that disclosing this confidential information constitutes a breach of privilege. I would also submit that this disclosure is a violation of the principles of consensus government that we use in this forum for the dignity of this House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the point of privilege. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Speaker, this issue is definitely in the public domain. There was a press release put out by the Minister this morning. The comments from my colleague Mrs. Groenewegen were about the situation that we had to deal with in the 13th Assembly and that reality is real. The issue of having a major deficit in this government has a major implication on all programs going forward. The press release clearly stipulates that this bridge is not going to cost us $165 million. It’s going to cost us $181 million and we don’t really know what the final price really is. Mr. Speaker, I think the question on privilege is information that has been revealed or released where someone else has the documentation.

In regards to the Member’s comments talking about what happened in the 13th Assembly, that scenario

is real. Where we are going with this particular project and other projects going forward puts us all at risk in this House. We have an obligation as Members of this House to protect the public purse, not to scandalize the system, not to lose money, not to put us into a situation where we go into the next election and have the next people coming in having to deal with the mess that we are going to have to clean up.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that by putting out a press release this morning, this information is out there. It’s $181 million; the public now knows. It’s in the public domain and there’s nothing to hide here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the point of privilege. The honourable Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.