Mr. Speaker, we have a medical policy that applies to all conditions whether it be cancer, transplant, premature baby who needs to be in an incubator, all kinds of medical procedures, and they work. I don’t think we want to be looking at creating 100 different policies depending on the specified condition that would require putting values on medical procedures that our residents need. Our policy is that we will provide medical travel per resident for one medical escort who needs to be with the patient. Mr. Speaker, that works and it is one of the best in the country. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not suggesting that we create a medical travel policy because someone is flying down and they are getting a needle in their shoulder and we have to send the whole family to Edmonton to make sure that they feel comfortable. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about a situation whether it be this particular case or similar cases whereas these are truly life and death days. Every day is an important day. Every day is certainly a blessing. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to urgent situations as I am trying to describe in this situation, what is stopping the Minister from demonstrating some compassion that shows that we will keep a family support high and united regularly by developing a policy that recognizes this? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I believe all the Members in the House and the government recognizes and understands that there are many medical conditions that are serious, that are trying and it is about life and death, whether it is cancer, whether it is heart attack, you name it. There are so many procedures that our residents need on a day-to-day basis that our people will tell you that are pressing to them whether it is breast cancer, colorectal cancer, somebody who is in a car accident. We could go on and on. We have a general policy that allows our residents to access those services where it is necessary and then we provide financial support for a medical escort. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The issue of the Deh Cho Bridge Project, and assuming the debt has come to this session for that purpose, is one where we had to initiate additional discussions with the federal government to work with us around our borrowing limit. With that in place, there will be no further impact on this government or the next government. Of course, the next government will have to set its own fiscal strategy as to how it goes about investing and spending of the dollars that are available. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I quite buy that. I am just wondering if we would have been able to take on a project like this if we had already been carrying this much debt and does that not get through to the Premier in terms of what some of the possible limitations he might consider as consequences of this project.

Mr. Speaker, the whole Deh Cho Bridge Project, the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, that agreement that was signed, all contemplated of trying to have this debt outside of our accounting structures within the abilities that we have already set or the borrowing limit set by the federal government. The debt limit was taken into consideration in trying to come up with ways of trying to get the large infrastructure projects of this nature off the ground. That is why this process was taken.

Previous governments have looked at the P3 initiative as well. Unfortunately, as we find ourselves now, many of the pieces that were laid before us and put in place by a previous Assembly, we have had to go in and restructure and take over the control of that. By taking control of that, we will have to assume that debt. That will affect future governments in the sense of available debt and the total debt limit that is available for borrowing of future governments. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Premier appreciates or is a little more to it than he inferred in his first response there. I think there is a huge implication of carrying this much debt through messing up as we have done.

I have heard the government say, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to service this debt no problem, with less than 1 percent of our revenues and so on. Does that mean that we are going to continue to pay this debt down that we are now carrying on our books at this low rate so that we are going to be carrying the debt for 35 years as we slowly pay it down and be restricted in what we can take on, the flexibility we have fiscally for a long period of time? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the financial arrangements made by the lenders and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, with input from quite a number of sources, let’s be clear. There was a project put in place by a previous government that had a concession agreement that flowed into this government. The Deh Cho Bridge Act was put in place even prior to that. Members may throw about the words “messed up” and so on. The simple fact is that we have had to step in because of contractor issues, because of capacity issues of this project.

Now, if all of the pieces fell together as they were initially identified, we would have Members standing up when the ribbon cutting ceremony happened, talking about the best thing the Government of the Northwest Territories ever got into. Unfortunately, we didn’t get there. We as the Government of the Northwest Territories have had to now step in, as this process clearly identifies, of having to assume that debt. By assuming the debt and by looking at what we have to face as the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Member is correct; there are future, in a sense, implications about available borrowing room. Every government has to weigh that if they will borrow for projects. Our Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger, laid out in his budget process the fiscal strategy of going back to a more typical capital program with the Government of the Northwest Territories and that would be $75 million on an annual basis.

So as we go forward on this project we do have to look at the impacts of such an agreement, what they mean to us going forward, what it means in this environment, ensuring that we do not burden the future governments with the decisions we have.

As we’ve had to step into this project, the financing agreement that’s been put in place by the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation with the lenders has a 35-year payment plan to it, if that’s the proper terminology to use. That plan can be paid out depending on, for example, the real bond market that’s out there and how much of a penalty that’s potentially put on to that payout. There are going to have to be some

things that we’ll have to look at. Right now we would be assuming or making huge assumptions as to what future bonds may be.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.

I appreciate those comments from the Premier. I personally believe there are huge implications to the services and infrastructure that this government can and will be able to contemplate because of this. My last question is: what are the implications to the government if we decline this proposed appropriation bill for $165 million?

As Members are aware and as we have briefed Members, the need for this session is based on the lenders requesting the GNWT assume the debt. If we do not assume the debt, then there will be a make-whole clause that would kick in. There would be a penalty on top of the repayment of the debt. We would have a project that is out of the water but yet to be complete. So it will cost additional monies on the Government of the Northwest Territories and without assuming this process and having the federal government work with us as they have committed to on debt relief, in future years we would have to do what some Members have talked about in our meetings about having to squeeze our belts and reduce our expenditures to afford this in future years. The steps we have taken provide us the necessary tools so that will not have to happen.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions today for the Minister of Transportation. Again it gets back to the Deh Cho Bridge Project and the financial side of things. I want to ask the Minister of Transportation when exactly did the lenders turn the tap off on the project.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m assuming by the “tap” the Member means the ability to draw down on the construction funding. We were formally notified by the lenders on March 1st that we would not be able to draw

down any further dollars. We informed the Members of the standing committee on March 2nd .

Formally notified and reality are two different things. I’d like to ask the Minister when the money stopped flowing on this project and when the government first became aware that the construction account from the lending agency was in fact locked up. When did that happen?

The Member asked about when we were officially notified and I gave him that response. Our last drawdown was in December. We had informed Members that there was some concern that the lenders had issued a notice of default and it may result in complications with the project. Probably around the middle -- I don’t have an exact date -- of February we had some discussions with the lenders. At that time they indicated to us that there was going to be some ability to be flexible and officially we did not have anything in writing until March 1st . We informed the

members of standing committee on the 2nd .

I’m just trying to make some sense of how this happens. The money gets turned off in December. The Minister comes before committee the last week of January and tells us everything on the project is going along relatively smoothly. Within two weeks of that meeting we’re informed that the government is looking for a $15 million supplementary appropriation from us and looking for our support for that to in effect loosen up the lenders and get the money flowing again. I’d like to ask the Minister when did the Minister exactly know that there was no money coming from the lenders. I know he says he was officially notified on March 1st ,

but did the department know back in December and why didn’t they tell us the last week of January? Don’t they have a duty to tell us?

First of all, we didn’t know in December. Our last drawdown through the process was in December. We share all our information with the Members, as the Member knows. We give them all the information. We’re not trying to hide anything. Officially we were told no more drawdowns in writing March 1st . We had

discussions with the lenders in February where they indicated to us that there was a notice of default and as a result we had further discussions about the ability of being flexible. They approved and agreed with us that they would be. However, in the following letter we were told that on March 1st and

we informed the Members on the 2nd . So we did as

soon as possible after being formally informed.

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