Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. There’s a motion on the floor. The motion is being distributed. To the motion.

Question is being called.

---Carried

We’ll extend hours until we conclude. We’ll just be carrying beyond our normal hours of adjournment. Next on my list, Mr. Jacobson, were you done?

Yes, I was, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. Next on my list is Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was thinking about this last night and I was thinking about whoever thought that a bridge connecting the southern part of the Northwest Territories would be such a troublesome headache and heartache for some people, and for other people, what were they thinking, you know? Those types of thoughts ran through my mind.

Mr. Chair, when the bridge was considered in 1958 it was targeted at $6.2 million, as commissioned by the federal government consultant to do and at that time it was too expensive, unheard of, can’t do it. So they waited until a little later, until 1975, and, God forbid, 25 to 30 million dollars to build a bridge. Then after a while, later on it was considered again and it was unheard of naming the price at $50 million. Mr. Chair, now the price tag is at $182 million and a lot of people are just rolling their eyes and saying what happened to the price, it escalated so high.

You know, Mr. Chair, I’ve looked at it and I thought, well, you know, to build a bridge, it’s simple. You know, put together a team of planners, put together some financial gurus, some engineers, a construction company, get the support of the communities, territorial support, and simply build a bridge. Follow the plans and cut the ribbon and move on and build other bridges. I thought, you know, because we have very capable, competent people within the Northwest Territories and how things are getting done here. Sounds simple, right, Mr. Chair?

However, as I get more and more into the details and find out about the negotiations and how things move and what things need to be considered, it’s like a chef being in the kitchen with a recipe: everybody’s doing their sort of thing, how much you need of this, how much you need of that and you can’t do this before this gets done and everything’s got to move in a synchronized way sort of thing, and sometimes it just doesn’t happen -- the power goes out and all hell breaks loose. Then the light goes back and we say, okay, where are we at now? Well, we’ve got to start all over again on this one here, because this recipe is just not right because it has to be at this temperature and all this stuff.

Really, it’s about getting people to work together, the way I see it. Somebody had to have the vision here, and I’m not too sure if we had a strong enough vision to really construct the bridge and put the bridge in in the way that we thought it was planned to be.

I think my colleague Ms. Bisaro talked about the management team, the quality of the management team, doing the checks. That’s what I’m looking forward to, this new appropriation bill and how is this government going to assure the people of the Northwest Territories, my constituents in the Sahtu, that quality control assurance is going to happen from now on, and is that going to be the norm and the ethical integrity standards of all our infrastructure projects.

Mr. Krutko from the Mackenzie Delta said it earlier, there are other projects that need to be considered, looked at, seriously put on the books in terms of opening up the Northwest Territories, not just one part of the Northwest Territories but other parts of the Northwest Territories. If we’re really serious about this Deh Cho Bridge, we should be really seriously considering other bridges like the Peel, the Great Bear, even I’ll mention the Liard. We have to consider that. We are investing $165, over $182 million into a major infrastructure. We are going to own this asset. Well, we should also look at other regions that need the type of infrastructure that will open up their economic resources to contribute to the Northwest Territories, not just on a part-time basis.

With this Deh Cho Bridge I hope that we come out with a real good book on how to build bridges in the Northwest Territories. We have some people who are advising us. Well, we have to really pull them to task here and hold them accountable as to the advice that we’re getting, because this project here, when you look at the big picture, Mr. Chair, is small. We want to build a Mackenzie Valley Highway at $1.8 billion; $165 million, $182 million is nothing. By golly, let’s get it right here, and let’s learn all the lessons we had with the Deh Cho Bridge. Take it as a real hard learned lesson.

Is this going to increase our cost of living or decrease our cost of living in Fort Providence, in Behchoko, in Whati, Gameti, and of course into the community of Yellowknife and Dettah and Ndilo? What about in the Sahtu and the Beaufort-Delta, the Mackenzie Delta, Nahendeh? Are those communities going to have to see an increase or a decrease in their cost of living? Because we are certainly a part of that bridge now, we’re right in bed with them. Are we going to see that? So those are the kind of questions I’m going to ask later on.

Again, my colleague talked about the federal government’s involvement and I spoke earlier to Premier, and I think Mr. Premier has given me some assurance and satisfaction, but the federal

government’s involvement to go ahead in terms of how we can get some evidence and say yes, the federal government is going to say what they’re going to do. That will go a long way with me in terms of putting some support behind this appropriation bill here.

The cost of opening up the Northwest Territories in the southern part certainly has opened up my eyes in terms of what it takes. It’s not a popular thing, building this bridge here. Certainly from the community of Fort Providence, they had a vision. I’m not too sure, as my colleagues mentioned, if the management had really owned up to the vision, otherwise we wouldn’t be in this position. This was a P3 project, a totally different scenario. Now we’re in a different ballgame here, so I hope we have some leadership on this here to move on with the project here.

I talked about the Mackenzie Valley Highway and the bridges. I certainly want to know for sure in terms of how this is going to affect us in the years to come.

Mr. Chair, the comments I do have... I want to save it for later on when we get more into the detail. There are some really good comments around the table that I heard in terms of this superstructure that’s going into the Mackenzie River. You know, I take the position that I do have a choice that I’m making today. My choice is that if I do not support it, you would tell me specifically what the consequences are going to be to pull those piers out. You will tell me what it’s going to cost the Sahtu, because I also have a choice to say if we do go ahead with it. What type of satisfactory answers can you give me to say yes on projects, on debt, long-term repayment and various options to repay this on a shorter term, and other things like that would satisfy me.

People in the Sahtu want to know that if the Deh Cho Bridge is going to be, we want to know if the Bear River Bridge can get built and have this kind of support on the bridge on the Bear River. My friend talked about the Peel River. They want to know, if we do it for one, we are going to do it for all. Or even Liard, they talked about a bridge there. We have to talk about this. We have to open the North for everybody, not just for southern parts. I will end it there, Mr. Chairman. Let’s get on this and move.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Next on my list is Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was certainly in the Cabinet on the day that started the whole process of the Deh Cho Bridge. I have no problem to say that I continue to support the bridge. It was a megaproject. It was good for the North and even after we were elected, up to a year ago or 18 months ago it was a timely project. The economy was going downhill and providing work and

opportunities to the North certainly was a good thing. However, I still continue to support the bridge. I ran out of friends in supporting the bridge, Mr. Chairman, only because of the debacle that has happened in the last year. My constituents, of course, are increasingly concerned. They have not said stop the project to me at any point, but they do want to say that as taxpayers they don’t want to be paying for it. If anything, the Minister and the Premier can explain to the public about some of the cost recoveries, efforts, that are built into the process as well as we approved $15 million not even two or three week ago. Of course, when that hits the media, the taxpayers are concerned that they are the ones that are going to be paying for it. Some more explanation for that is certainly necessary.

One of the reasons I support the bridge project is because myself and my constituents have always believed that some regions get their special projects and eventually somewhere down the line my region will get a special project. They are huge and big. They require a tremendous amount of resources, money, and we cannot do two or three at a time. Eventually I see a special project for my region. One of them, of course, is one of the entry points to us eventually getting involved in the Mackenzie Highway expansion. We foresee a bridge around Fort Simpson as well.

At the same time, within the last two and a half years the frustration of the Members come out here is only because we as MLAs, our power as MLAs is the most potent, I guess, when we assemble. That is the time we can question the government. We can unite as MLAs. We can lobby, persuade and pursue government for accountability issues. This is no different. My concern is how is government going to inform Members from this side of the House that Regular Members and Priorities and Planning committee throughout up until May and even throughout the summer months of progress of the Deh Cho Bridge, because it is no wonder my colleagues are distrustful. We spend a lot of time away from the House during the summer months only because we are doing our summer constituency work and I think it is up to almost two and a half months that we are away during the summer.

Once again, when we break from here, we are not going to resume until sometime in May. During those quiet periods of when our Legislature is not sitting, that we as Members are doing the hearsay things, get bits and pieces of information, but we did pass a motion in this House in the winter session as well as there was a commitment by the Minister to update the MLAs on a regular basis. I would like to challenge him. How is he going to best do that? I don’t know if it is by phone conferences or else pick an opportune time between now and the main session to get us all together and to

update us on the progress of the construction. That is what my constituents want from me. They want me to have the opportunity to be more watchful over the project.

I was never one for micromanaging government projects there, Mr. Chairman, but in this case there are lots of sensitivities around the Deh Cho Bridge project. I myself as an MLA want assurances and I want the confidence to report to my constituency that, yes, with government taking over the bridge, there is a good stable management team. One of the ways that we build trust, Mr. Chairman, is we have to have frequent meetings to ensure that things are on track, to ensure that a lot of the questions that myself and my colleagues have been asking are answered. I do not want to see that if we conclude here by Friday and we are not resuming again until May, like I said, but I think that there has to be a mechanism of bringing us back together as a full Assembly through some form or another to continue to update us on the progress of the bridge.

As well, during my questions in the House in the winter session to the Minister of Transportation around the Deh Cho Bridge, the confidence of the public needs to be reassured too. I think the Minister spoke of establishing a website, trying to put as much construction information on the website. We as MLAs get a lot of information, but the public deserves that very same information and I am reiterating what my colleague said about what we said all along: the public wants to know. They have a right to know as much information that they can get that is not confidential in nature. As we are progressing here, we have done lots of work. We released lots of information but it would be nice to consolidate it into a website. I am not too sure how they would do it, but I think that commitment should be followed up as well.

Another thing that we are taking over the bridge project. It is too bad about the way things played out there, Mr. Chairman. Having the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and the community of Fort Providence building the bridge was a good intention. Unfortunately, there are many reasons for it. One of the biggest ones, of course, as they call it a P3 project. Hopefully we can learn from this because other communities will want P3 projects. They will want opportunities to build big infrastructures because there are some on the books. At the same time we have to learn from it and establish at least some type of guidelines that especially in this case we should have had assurances like we had to establish and managing a manager and engineers. There should be some criteria to follow and not just set up a corporation for setting up a corporation. I think by not being too diligent in that sense, we were certainly part of that failure. So hopefully we will learn from that and for the future, because we do need communities to work with our government and work towards the

benefit of the communities, be it financial or social or economic, whatever their benefits may be. Just because we got a bad experience here doesn’t mean that we cannot move forward with other projects there.

With that, if anything in my opening statements is pertinent here is that we’re going to need a mechanism for reviewing progress reports between now and May and then throughout the summer months. I believe that’s up to the government to come up with a solution like that.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to say I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore. I think all things being what they are, this has definitely been a pretty tough learning curve on how we handle P3s in the Northwest Territories. We, if anything, have had a very poor record on P3s. If anything, we should have probably done more due diligence on who our partners were and if they have the capacity to do the job. Also having a company heading your construction going bankrupt halfway through the project didn’t help either. I think we have to be realistic here that we hopefully will avoid these implications happening in the future. I think sometimes you have to learn from your mistakes and try to move forward knowing you have learned the hard way.

I think by learning the hard way I do have concerns coming from constituents where we are asking for capital projects, whether it’s the Aklavik road project to its gravel source and hoping we would be treated just like Tuktoyaktuk and their gravel source. For some reason we just didn’t happen to be on top of the list. We ended up at the bottom of the list. Now we’re being told to put an application in to the federal government. Well, dollars were spent from this government for that project. The same thing with regard to preliminary work on the Peel River Bridge. That stuff was done between myself and other parties. I think this government has to take those issues seriously.

We realize we spent a lot of money on capital infrastructure in the last number of years. If you look geographically at where those capital expenditures are and wonder why the small communities are having infrastructure challenges, we’re being told sorry, we can’t help you there. Sorry, we don’t have money for this. Sorry, we don’t have money for that. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a trail to a gravel source or a simple trail in the communities, we’re limited for that. Yet we still have health issues in the communities whether it’s about dust control, et cetera. For some reason this government does not seem to have the willingness to assist in those areas. When it comes to going into crisis mode we manage to find $15 million

simply by coming forward with a supp to say sorry, it’s a goodwill gesture and it will get us over the hurdle and we’ll get money back to move on the project. Then we find out coming here today that was not the case.

I think that as a government we are responsible for ensuring the public purse. I still don’t feel comfortable with the comments in the Premier’s statement about Mr. Flaherty going to Cabinet to get some sort of Cabinet approval for us to be able to do this. When is this going to Cabinet? When are we going to get something in writing? Will they have to make amendments to speak to our borrowing limit through legislative changes? I don’t feel comfortable simply saying that Mr. Flaherty is a nice guy. If Mr. Flaherty was such a nice guy he would have helped us with the investment in the pipeline. He would have helped us with the investment in the Mackenzie Highway. Yet the Conservative government has not done anything by way of major investment in the Northwest Territories to allow those capital projects to be funded by federal investment dollars. Yet the Aboriginal Pipeline Group and the Mackenzie Valley organizations are trying to work with them to get this stuff going. I think it’s something we have to be aware of, knowing that we don’t have control of the federal decision. It’s a Cabinet decision that has to be made in the federal government. Until that decision is made I cannot fully support this initiative going forward until I know for a fact that there was a federal Cabinet meeting where they made the decision to increase our borrowing limit to $665 million. I know you’re saying that, but for me saying it is one thing and going to the federal Cabinet table and making that federal decision is something that I’d like to see in writing from the federal Minister that the Cabinet decision was made.

I think it’s important that we as legislators realize that whatever way we make the decision we would have had to pay for this capital investment over 35 years. Now it seems like we’re going to have to put it on our books sooner than we thought. Because of that now we’re still going to have to make those payments over 35 years but under a different financial formula than we expected.

I think that we as a government have to realize that we have to take advantage of this opportunity. I know that through the capacity that this government has and with the Department of Transportation taking over this responsibility and having key people in key positions to oversee and manage the project whether it’s the building and construction of bridges or developing the engineering capacity that we’re hoping to keep in house after we conclude this project and also be able to move on to other projects that I’ve touched on such as the Peel River Bridge, the Bear River Bridge, the bridge across the Liard and replace the ferries going forward. I think we also have to realize that there are other big

projects on the horizon such as the pipeline or the Mackenzie Highway or connecting our communities to the Government of the Northwest Territories public infrastructure. As we can see from global warming and whatnot, we are going to have to make that decision to connect communities to public highways over land. We cannot depend on the winter resupply system as we’ve learned over the years. It’s going to get worse. It’s not going to get better.

I know that there is nothing we can do now. We’re in a bad situation. We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. I think because of that we have no other choice but to agree to this supp going forward with some guarantees from the federal government in writing that the federal Cabinet has made the decision to increase our borrowing limit to allow us to work this through our debt without an implication on future governments going forward.

Someone who has been here since the 13th Assembly, we walked into a $110 million deficit that we had to crawl out of. We had to sell government assets, amalgamate departments, lay people off. That wasn’t easy. If we end up finding out that Cabinet for one reason or another has not agreed fully on this and they say no to Mr. Flaherty, then what? That’s the question I have and I’d like an answer to that one.

For me I certainly don’t feel comfortable going forward. What happens to that debt after five years? If they give us a five-year window, where does this fit in our books after five years? How does this move forward with future debt we will be assuming for other public infrastructure such as the replacement of Snare Hydro or replacement of major capital projects such as the Power Corporation increasing its debt?

The other issue I have is in regard to the Housing Corporation debt and what happens when we have to replace the $35 million supp funding for the housing rent supp? There are numbers out there that we still have to be aware of. I realize going forward, from what we’ve seen, that we haven’t seen much growth. If anything, our population numbers are dropping. Our corporate taxes are not what we were hoping they would be. I think for myself we have to get that guaranteed assurance from the federal government. Hopefully we’ll get that sometime this week or at least some assurance that Cabinet has dealt with it and made a decision.

I will leave it at that and look forward to the responses from the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. That’s all the Members on my list. I will now go to Premier Roland for a response to the general comments. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll deal with some of the comments that were made and requests for information and then I’ll hand it over to Minister Michael McLeod to deal with some of the technical aspects of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and the structures and Associated Engineering, all that side of it.

A number of things that we need to put out in, as Members have said, clear English, plain English for the record for the public of the Northwest Territories, the first one is that, I think Mr. Bromley stated, he’d rather not be here. I’ve heard other Members say that and I share their frustration. We would not want to be here as well. Our preference is that everything sailed along as was initially designed and we would be saying this is the best thing we ever entered into with our aboriginal partnership across the Northwest Territories or the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, in this case, and had a very successful project. Unfortunately, like a self-fulfilling prophecy from some of the Members in the Assembly over the years, this has come to the worst-case scenario. I must say that there are times when it’s been very frustrating when we are in very sensitive areas of discussion with the lenders, and in this case we’ve got a commitment from the federal Minister of Finance, Minister Flaherty, dealing with us on this debt relief for the Deh Cho Bridge Project. Again, we’re making comments that hopefully do not affect us as we go forward and shut those doors on us.

I put a lot of weight in my dealings with Minister Flaherty. He has told me in the past when I was Finance Minister, and this had started even into this first budget of the 16th Assembly, he was clear to

me on what we were going to get or not get. So when he tells me that he will work with us to deal with this debt, I put a lot of weight to his words on that side of it. We’re trying to get the language narrowed down as best as possible and provide that comfort to the Members of the Legislative Assembly.

Secondly, the fact that if we do not deal with this matter as we have proposed to the Members of the Legislative Assembly, then guaranteed what Members are saying now about impacts on projects, impacts on our operations and maintenance, they will be impacted. We will have to live within our fiscal responsibility policy which tells us we have to live within our means. Although this year we would not impact it, we would be impacted on that debt limit before the end of the 16th Legislative Assembly without relief from the federal government. I’m putting a lot of weight in that relief from Minister Flaherty.

The other areas that we do need to again be clear on is that without the necessary steps being taken by this Assembly we would have to pay penalties over and above what is being proposed now. As

much as Members are reluctant to accept that, that is the fact. The concession agreement is there. The concession agreement has been in the hands of Members since the early life of this government. That’s unfortunate it’s there. The reason it was a 35-year agreement was the simple fact that as the Government of the Northwest Territories we knew we couldn’t afford to do a big project in big chunks. So it was spread out much like we would do a mortgage on a home, but a 35-year agreement. This agreement is typical of corporate agreements of this nature when it comes to borrowing of money.

There has been much said about this. In fact, I was doing a lot of historical review of Hansard right back to 2003 when the legislation for the Deh Cho Bridge Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly. There were some very nice things said about that legislation, about what it could mean for us and wishing the partners much success as we move forward. I think many of us shared that in the life of the 14th Legislative Assembly. Unfortunately, we

are in this situation now where we’re having to assume it and make it a wholly owned government project, and as I said in the Minister’s statement earlier, accept and assume the debt and the project on the books as a government capital project.

So there was much support for the act itself. In the act there was the design of a yet-to-be-agreed-to concession agreement. So in the 14th Assembly,

that was put forward; 15th Assembly, the

negotiations began and were worked on and signed off; 16th Assembly, we started dealing with the

financial matters of that concession agreement and getting those details in order and working with quite a number of partners.

The area that was discussed about the fiscal projections being rose-tinted glasses, I would say that’s been far from what I’ve come to look at in my years as a Member of the Legislative Assembly. There are many times that I’ve been told when I used to be in Finance and Finance overall was told too conservative, you’re too conservative, you need to open the doors more. So we tend to operate on that basis and it served us well.

When we sat down as the Legislature at the start of this Assembly, we presented a belt-tightening exercise to live within our means to avoid the debt wall. We have avoided the debt wall, even though we did not succeed to the fullest extent we wanted to, because Members felt it was too harsh. So we did not fully implement the belt-tightening exercise back then, but we still achieved a portion of it that allowed us to live within our means. Same scenario here: we’re proposing we take this project over and we have a fix in place that would allow us to move forward without impacting, and I’ll say this again, without impacting on the fiscal strategy that was presented in Finance Minister Miltenberger’s budget address made in this House at the end of

January. That strategy stays in place before we got the news from the lenders that they wanted us to assume the debt. So we’re still working with that strategy in place.

I must say, I, as well, am frustrated with the fact that we have come to this place in the history of the Government of the Northwest Territories, but at the same time we’ve heard Members about supporting projects across the North, other bridges, other highways, other infrastructure that is needed across the Territory, much the same as we talk about the Deh Cho Bridge. At one point there was the… Someone actually showed me, a past resident of Yellowknife showed me the dollar bills that were made for the bridge project back then and people bought these as a symbolic way of saying they wanted the bridge project. Every government until the 14th Assembly saw it as unable to be done

because of our financial processes and our debt limits, until this matter came up and this approach was taken and risk was weighed and a decision was made to move forward.

So we’re in this position. We have a supplementary appropriation documented to assume the debt and the project and the dollars. We’re working with the federal government to give us relief on the debt situation overall, the debt limit they’ve put in place, short-term relief, as Minister Flaherty has told me, and we will need to go on that basis.

Yes, there needs to be a better accounting. We fully realize that. In fact, when the first signs of the construction problem started to appear, that project management board, as Member Bisaro spoke of, was in place. Following that, with all of the difficulties that came in place, there was a new management structure put in place and the lender signed off on that. So for the year following, things moved along much better. In fact, the construction company now, Ruskin, that is doing this, showed that that next year... They were able to move that project along in a manner much smoother and move it along at a good rate, and we’re holding now, as we go forward, that that will be the practice going forward. But for the rest of the details on the technical side and all of that, I will go to Minister McLeod on that.

Thank you, Premier Roland. We’ll now go to Minister Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d also like to thank the Members for their comments. I certainly can appreciate a certain level of frustration on this project. I don’t believe I have to remind anybody why the bridge project was embarked on. This has been on the minds of the residents of this area for years, from the time the Yellowknife road was constructed to connect to the rest of Canada, there has always been a bottleneck, there has always been a very fragile piece of infrastructure that had to be constructed

every year, and we also had to rely on ferry service that had a lot of interruptions and we still see that to this day. Through the concept of a public-private partnership we at last had the means to move forward on construction of a very important piece of public infrastructure that would allow us to construct this transportation infrastructure. It would also allow us to not deplete our capital resources, which we felt was important.

I still believe that it’s an important part of what we do; it’s an important piece of infrastructure. At the time, a year and a half ago when the opportunity was made available for me to assume the Department of Transportation I talked to the Premier because I felt that I could lend something to this department and to this project. I continue to believe in the project, and I certainly continue to believe in our staff at DOT.

For the time that I’ve been involved with the government as a Regular Member and as a Cabinet Minister, we’ve all talked about we need to think outside of the box, we have to be creative. Certainly that’s the direction I’ve taken as a result from what I hear in this government and what I hear from Regular Members. We’ve done a lot of things on that front. The Tuk-Inuvik road is a good example. It’s a partnership with those two communities, and it’s allowed us to provide a lot of work and move forward on that front where it’s attracted the attention of the federal government. We also have done the same thing with the City of Yellowknife; we created a partnership, something that historically hadn’t been done in terms of working together with communities. And we continue to do that. We’re doing it now with the project description report on the Mackenzie Valley Highway. We’re also signing agreements with the Gwich’in and the Sahtu and now the Deh Cho also want to have meetings.

So it’s an interesting way to do business. It’s something that we need to look at and the reality is if we don’t put on our creative hats, a lot of things wouldn’t happen. Certainly I think if the direction is that we change the way we do business and wait for the feds to do it, that’s something we’ll take as direction and move forward on that front. But recognizing that this project right from the get-go was a megaproject, any kind of slippage, any type of delays were going to be very expensive. I think we all recognize now there were challenges with the design that didn’t pass all the inspections that were required, and there were also challenges with the contractor and things had to be changed, decisions had to be made, and they were very difficult ones.

Earlier on we had anticipated, I think, MLA Hawkins indicated that we should have had federal support. Well, we did seek federal support in terms of dollars and investment. They were not in a position to

make that contribution as they didn’t have their P3 office set up and they just set the program up recently.

The bridge design was reviewed by advisors that we hired independently, that gave us the confidence to go ahead. There is, of course, as we know now, a lot of difficulty getting the conceptual design to pass a lot of the tests, but there is also rationale that we were challenged again because one of the designers left the project and we had to bring in new people onto the design team. The question was raised will we be going after the original designer for recovery? I imagine that’s something we’re going to visit. It’s under consideration. When a project goes forward without the original designer not being available, that certainly causes challenges and so we’re exploring that and we’re looking at other ways to see what we can recover. Having said that, we expect any litigation that is embarked on won’t be pretty and that’s certainly something that has to be considered as the project is stabilized and we move forward.

The regulations for the toll on the toll rate is again another area that we’re working on. It’s not done yet, but this is something we need to have in place before the summer of 2011.

The issues raised by MLA Ramsay are certainly not new ones. He’s raised them before. He’s been very vocal about the project. He’s stated on some occasions that he supports the project but has concerns. I’m still trying to find what areas he supports, and, of course, the public tender issue is something that he’s raised and we’ve responded by indicating that we did have initial discussions with ATCON Construction and weren’t able to conclude our negotiations or our discussions with them. Because of time and because of costs we felt the best way to go and we had people that concurred with us that this is what we needed to do. Going to a public tender would have meant another year delay. That would have cost at least the price of the interest and what it would mean to payments on interest and principal and that would have been, we calculate, at least $8 million plus and that’s not something we wanted to come forward for another contribution.

We agree that an audit needs to be done on the bridge. We have committed that we will be doing a review internally and also at the conclusion of the project have an independent company. I also believe the Premier had made those commitments prior to now and a lot of things have to be looked at. We have to look at the internal costs of what it costs us as a department, as a government and things that were not charged back to the project itself. We would expect that’s over $1 million for some of the staff that we have that put their time towards it, some of the vehicle costs, the travel costs, the hotel rooms, things of that nature have to

be calculated and packaged up so we can provide it. We have to take a detailed look at the construction costs to date. We have been reviewing it as we went along. We have to do a wrap-up and see what has transpired there.

I’m not sure when the Member states that I don’t believe the government or the department has an accurate measurement of how far the project has moved along and why he would challenge that. I’m not sure what his expertise is or who he is using to provide that information, but we feel it’s 50 percent completed, $90 million of the $180 million budget has been spent. I guess we need clarity as to what the Member means when he says what is also hanging out in the background. I thought we were pretty clear when we indicated that the contract for Ruskin was at $68 million. We signed for $72 because it included a $4 million carry-over. If that wasn’t clear to the Member I certainly apologize for that, but that was the intent and I believe that was brought forward to the committee.

There was also a question raised as to what day did the Bridge Corporation actually sign a contract with Ruskin Construction and that day was the 4th of March, that’s the day that the contract was actually signed. What caused the lenders to call or request the government to assume the loan? I think it’s pretty clear that they were feeling that there was a design default on the milestone that they set. We don’t agree, but there is no mechanism for us to appeal it or dispute it. So it’s brought us to this point. Also to look at cancelling the contract with Ruskin right now we feel would have huge financial implications and I’m still not happy when a Member raises a concern and points to a company that could do it cheaper, a company that feels they were left out and now is operating in hindsight and giving us a really lowball price. So it’s concerning, but I mean I have to appreciate the Member’s point of view.

Like other Members, I was happy to hear the comments from Mr. Abernethy. He’s indicated that is one of the first times that we’re going to be voting on this. I think the House has had a couple of occasions to vote on it, maybe not these Members but the 14th Assembly the Deh Cho Bridge Act was

voted on and more recently we had the $15 million supp that came forward. He’s also indicated that there’s a lot of lessons that need to be learned and we need to take a look at the concept of P3, what worked, what didn’t work and what do we do to prevent things of this nature from happening. I think there are a lot of things that we can look at for improvement. There’s also, of course, concern that he’s raised with myself because he felt I was confident on this project. Mr. Chair, I have to point to the fact that it’s difficult to deal with the number of challenges that have come forward, but at the same time if I was going to lose my confidence in the project, then I guess I wouldn’t or shouldn’t be

in this position. It’s still a project that can move forward, it can be stabilized. We’ve made a lot of changes.

Aside from the $15 million cost overrun, it has not cost any more than what we had anticipated. The $15 million is going to be recovered. We have to make sure people understand that and I certainly agree. Assuming the debt is something that has always been part of this project as we guaranteed it as a government. Of course, this is the worst-case scenario and we have to make sure and make it clear to the public as to what impact this would have to our borrowing limit and we also have to qualify and what and why we hired the team we have in terms of providing that information on their qualifications and what has given us the confidence as we move forward.

There is a timeline that’s put in place of 2011. That was not a number that was picked out of the air. That’s something that was discussed and calculated and the construction company felt was something they could achieve. So there is a schedule.

I also want to make a couple comments on Mr. Beaulieu’s statements regarding not knowing about the $165 million. I thought it was fairly clear, but it’s unfortunate that he misunderstood and I would point out to him that he should feel free to come and request additional information from us or a briefing if that is warranted. There is a return on the investment. I’m not sure why he would feel that there is no return. Up to now it’s only been for the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and for us it would be that piece of infrastructure that we would assume in 35 years. There is a long-term commitment for 35 years on this project and there always has been.

I also wanted to point out that I certainly agree with some of the comments made by Mrs. Groenewegen about the $185 million capital investment. This is probably one of the few projects we have that has a self-liquidating component to it as three-quarters of this is either money that we’re already spending or money that we’ll be generating. It has some very positive parts to it. It’s unfortunate that we’ve had so many challenges.

I also want to make it clear that I’m concerned that a number of Members have raised potential structural problems with this project. I have no indication of that. We’ve gone back and talked to the people involved with the project. We’ve talked to the contractor. I’m not sure where that’s coming from. We know there are some people outside of this forum who may be raising this. It would be in order I think for us to be informed of that. If there is a concern for public safety or public security, then we should know that. Right now we have no evidence of that and we’ve talked to a lot of people in light of being informed that there were concerns.

So if anybody has any information, I certainly want to hear that.

There also is and still are many positive aspects of this project. Mrs. Groenewegen pointed to inflation and global warming. I would add to that convenience and environmental concerns and safety. All these things are still positive parts of this project.

Mr. Bromley raised a lot of issues also and made some interesting comments about this project having a checkered political and technical past. He’s also raised the concern about some of the issues on the technical side not being fully resolved. I would appreciate if we could get more clarity on what he’s pointing to. We feel we have a new design. We have the checks and balances. We have quality control in place that would prevent any concerns from coming forward.

He’s also made some comments or given his opinion about our fiscal framework and projections that are used. I guess our projection is just what it is: a projection based on our best information and best analysis with our best people.

The comments made by Wendy Bisaro regarding the project being poorly managed is something that I guess we’ll find out as we move forward. Fingers continue to be pointed either to the Bridge Corporation, ourselves, the contractor, the designer. I guess there are a lot of people involved and I’m sure everybody shares a little bit of what has happened.

There was a project management board set up initially and then last year we decided that it had really no value. They didn’t have a lot of authority or power to control. We were in a position where we had to step in and enhance our involvement. It was felt this was the best move.

We are looking at doing more assessments on truck traffic and more recently, as has been brought forward as an issue.

We are also tracking our revenues and expenditures separately. That’s a requirement of the Deh Cho Bridge Act.

As to the involvement of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation in the community of Fort Providence, that’s something that’s ongoing. We’d like to resolve that as soon as possible. We’ve had a number of meetings already. We plan to meet with them again, at least some of the senior people, this week sometime and hopefully in the next couple of weeks we’ll have that resolved.

There has been mention by a number of people that there needs to be a complete analysis of the project. We need to set protocols in place. We certainly agree. We don’t dispute that.

Again, Mr. Yakeleya raised how this project has created headache and heartache. I certainly can

support that. The concept sounds very simple: you design a project, you provide the funding, you hire the contractors, you go forward. I think all those ingredients were part of this project. There have been challenges that have factored in. But I also agree with the Member when he states that there are other projects that have to be considered. We need to be able to at some point decide or become creative enough that we can deal with the Great Bear bridge crossing, the Peel River that the MLA for Mackenzie Delta keeps raising, and Liard, and all those crossings need to be addressed at some point. I’m not sure if that’s something we want to wait for the federal government to do or if we’re going to try to move forward on those fronts. Right now we need to focus on stabilizing this project.

Mr. Menicoche raised the issue of better communication. We agree. We have already started moving on that whole area that needs to be addressed. We have developed a website that we are in the testing stages of. We are currently using it internally and at some point we would like to have that opened up for the public so they can see what’s happening and get the reports. There is some information on the GNWT website, but we’d like to see a bridge website also. We also want to start looking at providing information in print and continue with providing reports to the MLAs so they are in tune as this project unfolds.

All these things need to be done. We need to deal with the current issues in front of us first, of course. And we have to also look at how to respond to other communities that are asking us to do similar projects.

I guess MLA Abernethy summed it up the best. There is virtually not a lot of changes to the project except for the fact that there is a cost factor because of the delay of $15 million. Now we have to assume the debt. We’ve always guaranteed the debt, but now it comes on our books and of course there are concerns for the implications to the debt wall.

There were many things said today and many things that we agree with. Some things we need to get more clarity on. There is a learning curve, as Mr. Krutko said, and it has been a huge one. We need to of course always have the due diligence as we deal with companies and design. So I appreciate all the comments that were made and look forward to further questions on more specific detail.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. All the Members have had the opportunity to make general comments. The Premier and Minister have responded. Is committee agreed that we have concluded general comments?

Does the committee wish to proceed with detail on Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, 2010-2011?

It starts on page 5, but before we get started we’ll take a short break. Thank you, Members.

---SHORT RECESS

I’d like to call Committee of the Whole back to order. We’re reviewing Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures), and we’re on detail, page 5. First on my list is Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn’t going to get into a history lesson here but perhaps just to go back a little bit, if we look back, and it’s hard… I know the Minister of Transportation said the blame has to be shared around a number of people on this, and if I can just call it like I see it, there are two guys sitting at the table here, both were Members of the previous Cabinet, and if you want to get a little bit of a history lesson, you know, the Finance Minister, former Finance Minister, the Chair of the FMB, and the Minister who would have approved the concession agreement in the dying days of the last government is sitting right here. That’s a bit of a history lesson for you.

This is a serious situation that we’ve gotten ourselves into, and the Premier and the Minister of Transportation, they can spin things however they want to spin them, especially when it comes to the potential of this project to negatively impact the Territory’s finances on a go forward basis. The reason why it’s possible, I believe, for them to say that it’s not going to impact the fiscal strategy is because this supplementary appropriation hasn’t been passed. Absolutely, this expenditure, if it is on our books -- and Mr. Krutko is right, we haven’t gotten anything in writing from anybody -- if this expenditure ends up on the books of the Government of the Northwest Territories it is going to impact our ability to borrow money, it’s going to impact our ability to spend money. And let’s be frank and honest with the residents in the Northwest Territories, those people living in every community across the Territory that are going to be looking for infrastructure spending in their communities, if this thing continues to tilt sideways like it has, our ability as a government to deliver for our residents is going to be negatively impacted.

I’m not ready, maybe some of my colleagues might be ready to drink that Kool-Aid that’s out there, but I’m not willing to drink that Kool-Aid. I would equate it, Mr. Chairman, to something like a credit card and we’ve got ourselves up against our credit limit. We might be able to get a bit of a reprieve from the federal government, Mr. Chairman, but that $165 million is going to have to be repaid at some point

in time. There’s no mistaking that. There’s no getting around that. Certainly, the project is going to generate some revenue, so I guess that is one good aspect to it, but we are going to be on the hook for this, and there are some reasons here that, again, I just can’t see myself…

The right thing to do is to see this project through to conclusion, and I want to see that happen. However, there are some things here, Mr. Chairman, that, in my view, just need to be thoroughly addressed, and they haven’t been addressed.

The first question I’d have, and I guess I would direct it to the Minister of Transportation, is the concerns are out there over the concrete work on the south piers. If we want to get into specifics, I can get into specifics on which pier, how many loads were sent back. I can get into the core samples that were taken and, again, I’ve got a number of pictures, Mr. Chairman, that I do intend on tabling in this House either tomorrow, on Wednesday, that clearly show, and I’m not an engineer, but they clearly show cracks, thermal cracks on a number of the south piers, they show scour rock that is nowhere near the diameter that it was supposed to be for and it’s not even granite, it’s limestone. Most of that scour rock that was put in to protect the piers on the south side of that river has probably flowed away with the current by now. So what protection is there under the water for those piers today? I think that’s a question that needs to be thoroughly analyzed and looked at before, like I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, we approve additional money for this project and we build on top of the already in-the-ground infrastructure there. We need to make sure that that infrastructure is sound and it’s going to meet testing that should be… I think we should get a third party in there to have a look at the concrete work on the south piers.

Also, Mr. Chairman, there are issues with some other things on that, but I guess I have to ask questions here so I will ask that question to the, I guess, the first one would be to the concrete work on the south piers. What can the Minister provide to Members to give us every assurance that that concrete is sound and would pass quality assurance tests if a third party went in there and had a look at it? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. First I’ll go to Premier Roland and then I’ll go to Minister McLeod. Premier Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess, to deal with some of the spin that Mr. Ramsay continues to put out there and innuendo about things lacking and potential trouble here and trouble there, we’ve dealt with this from the day I first took the chair as Premier of the 16th Legislative Assembly, we’ve provided the information. Unfortunately we find ourselves here

where we’re actually putting a document forward that would assume the debt and management of the project and make it a Government of the Northwest Territories, a fully owned and operated project of the Government of the Northwest Territories. The Member says let’s be frank and honest. Well, then I ask the Member himself to be frank and honest. Put out the facts. If he’s calling into question the designation of individuals who have signed off on the tests, then he needs to put that on the record. He should have, in fact, when he first came across this information, been down the hall to either myself or the Minister to say we’ve got some real serious issues where we have one engineer calling into question another engineer’s work so that we could actually look into it. Bigger and more importantly is we have one of the largest firms, or a very large firm in Canada now working as part of the project team. They, of course before they accept this and move on and sign off on a final product, will be doing their own inspections and audits.

Now, I’m surprised that the Member, who I believe is a card carrying Conservative, would say that the Conservative government would not honour their commitment, that the federal Minister of Finance won’t honour his commitment. I put a huge weight on the fact that we have a commitment from Mr. Flaherty to work with us on that and his staff have followed up with our staff. So we know that work is progressing on that basis.

Now, for actual technical pieces and some of the calls of question, you know, we’re protected as Members in this House, but that still should not allow us to throw out words and rhetoric that damage reputations of firms and individuals in the Northwest Territories or anywhere else we do business. So I would urge the Member, if he had facts, then he should be up to the Minister’s office to lay them down so that we could ensure that all the things that were done, but from what’s been laid out with our partnership, with the new project management team, with their credibility on the line, I am fully satisfied they will do that and I’m sure the Minister of Transportation will be able to give more detailed information on that project team. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier Roland. Minister Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In response to the comments, some of them being very serious allegations that there has been discrepancies that are not being dealt with, I certainly, as the Premier indicated, would appreciate if that information would be brought to my attention. I would believe that some of the pictures that he’s looking at, some of it we have in our own possession. There is no doubt some deficiencies that we are dealing with, some have

been dealt with and some are scheduled to be resolved over the next little while and a scour rock is a deficiency that’s been noted, it hasn’t been paid for. We have held back on it and we have talked to the project people that were on site and confirmed that the cement work that was referred to in some of the piers has been looked at. The people that did repairs and inspected it claim that they’re all completed. We have documentation, they’ve signed it off and there are other companies that have a very credible stake in here that also inspected it as independent companies; Levelton and BPTEC was also involved in quality assurance.

So, Mr. Chairman, we have many experts on the job. There are many layers of inspection that take place. The contractor has inspectors on site. The Deh Cho Bridge Corporation had a firm that they utilized. The lenders also had a company that took part in inspections and knew what was going on on a daily basis, and of course we had our people that were on site and reviewed the information. So I would appreciate if the Member could bring that information forward and we could qualify whether there’s any merit to it. I believe it’s some deficiencies that we’ve already noted and I would be glad to provide the detail to the Member so that he can be reassured as this project is going forward.

We have to also ensure that the public has the security of knowing that the safety of their families and themselves are being looked after and that’s our first consideration, Mr. Chairman. That’s something we need to work out. If the Member is hearing things, if the Member has information, we need to get our hands on it and he should bring that information forward and to as to where he’s getting it from. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. We’re on page 5, 2010-2011, Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, (Infrastructure Expenditures), Transportation, capital investment expenditures, highways, not previously authorized, $165.439 million. Next on my list is Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several areas of concern, but my main area of concern is the financial situation that the Deh Cho Bridge will find the GNWT in. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, I guess the Premier, if he would be able to provide loan details of the details of the $165 million loan that was taken by the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. My understanding is that we guaranteed the loan. Therefore, I’d like to know if the Minister or the Premier will be able to provide the details of that loan. That’s my first question.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Premier Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transportation in meetings with

committee members provided that information and we’ll be able to provide it again to the Members regarding the breakdown of that loan.

Now, we need to be clear on the language we use because initially the reason this project was put through the DCBC was to keep it off our accounting or off our books and we couldn’t guarantee the debt in that sense, but we indemnified or we, through the guaranteed payments on the 35-year concession agreement, we in fact backstopped as a full agreement and I referenced that back in February 2001 in questions in this House, or February 21, 2008, on that area. But I’ll see if that information was provided and we’ll be able to provide that again to Members and I’ll have to ask the Minister of Finance what he has there and what he can provide. Thank you.

I wasn’t provided with the details of a loan. I don’t think we were provided the details of the loan, or I don’t recall seeing the details of the loan. Actually, I would like to see the documents that have put us in this position, because this is putting the government into long-term debt with no possibilities in there at all for any explorations of any terms.

Earlier on in response to the general comments from the committee here, the Premier indicated that this was like a mortgage, in a sense. Now, in a mortgage you get terms, one year, two years, five years, 10 if you want, whatever, but generally within a longer amortization of a loan, which I understand this is a 35-year amortized, this loan is amortized over 35 years. Now, within that, if this was a mortgage, probably a good long term would be five years. Now the indications are that this is actually a one-sided 35-year term loan. I’m interested for the reason that I want to find out who guaranteed the loan, who signed the loan and if there are any provisions in the loan to get out.

Earlier, as I responded, I talked about like a mortgage, 25 years-plus. In this case it’s 35 years, but it is a typical commercial loan. I’ll have Ms. Melhorn speak to more of the details.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Melhorn.

Thank you, Ms. Melhorn. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you. I understand obviously what type of loan was signed from what I’m hearing. I understand what type of loan was signed. My curiosity continues to be why. It’s beyond me why we would sign a term for the full amortization period. That’s what I find confusing. Okay, so, there’s a penalty if we pay out early. I mean, at some point unless the penalty continues to grow as to the money they would have made considering whether it’s using future value or present value of money or whatnot, but if we actually signed a loan or supported individuals to build infrastructure in the Northwest Territories to sign a loan that obviously is one sided, it’s a long-term loan, you can’t get out of it. If you get out of it you’re going to pay millions. That being the case, at some point it must become feasible for this government to pay the penalty and get out of the loan. At some point. It has to become feasible.

Now, I recognize the fact that maybe we’re guaranteeing this through actual payments of $8 million a year or whatever that is, which actually I don’t believe would be a correct number, that much money over that time period. If you take $8 million a year and times it by 35, that’s $280 million. That’s not a whole lot of interest. But it is some interest on $165 million over 35 years. That’s $115 million in interest. I hope that loan doesn’t indicate they would make good all of that interest. One reason I want to see the details of the loan.

The other is that I don’t believe that number of $8 million in loan payments on an annual basis satisfies this loan at the end of its term. It’s too little. In reality on a basic standard mortgage of 4 percent or whatever it is, you’re going to pay more than one and a half times or one and three-quarters times what the loan is. If you take $165 million and at $115 million that makes it $280 million. That’s less than a regular mortgage, for example. I recognize this is not a mortgage, but like a mortgage it probably has similar infrastructures that they are paying interest on interest and so on and so forth. So something doesn’t quite calculate in my mind. First of all, why would someone sign a loan this way or support the loan in this way?

I’d ask the Minister of Finance again if we could see the details of the loan rather than a briefing note on the details.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again I’d have to refer to the Minister of Finance as to that level of detail and if it’s been shared. I’m not familiar with it. I’ll go to Ms. Melhorn as to some additional information. I guess I’d have to refer to again the Minister of Finance and his staff to see if that is a meeting that can be arranged to provide that if it hasn’t been on that basis. The simple fact is the Member is saying he does not trust what he’s being presented.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on my list is Bob Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow up on my colleague Mr. Ramsay’s discovery that this scour rock was inappropriate and apparently this has been recognized. I’m wondering who put it there and if there is a claim against them. This is the first I’ve heard of it.

I guess while I’m at it, what other things haven’t we heard about in terms of deficiencies? This would be a good time to bring that forward rather than using a crowbar or blunt-handled axe handle to try and get it out of the Ministers. This would be a good time to hear about the things we haven’t heard about it terms of the deficiencies and what we’re doing and what the costs are associated with that.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t realize anybody would be looking at that level of detail. Some of the deficiencies that we have recorded are scour rock. There is also compaction that is an issue. There is also some -- I don’t know what level we want to get into -- concern over a couple of bolt holes that are now oblong that should be round. There is about a total of $4 million that are calculated for deficiencies and that is the $4 million that is being carried over. Most of the deficiencies or other deficiencies are considered to be minor.

There is some information that we’re working towards for final closure that has allowed us to not close the books or sign off until we have all the information. Some of that stuff is still coming forward from the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. Some of the deficiencies have been dealt with. Some we are working on. Some we are just waiting for information to close them off.

Thanks to the Minister for those comments. So in my little pea brain, the scour rocks, if they’re meant to protect the piers and they don’t it would ultimately be a safety issue. Is that a

correct impression? I guess it’s particularly the safety issues which ultimately everything with this bridge seems to be, I think.

We’re developing a piece of infrastructure over a large river in an extreme environment. Are there any other safety issues that we should know about? I keep hearing about the quality of the bores and stuff like this. The Minister is looking into that. Is there anything else we should be aware of on that?

Mr. Chairman, most of the information regarding the deficiencies are all relatively minor. We certainly can assure the Members that we’ll do a complete assessment. That is being done right now as we speak with the new companies that we have involved. They certainly are not going to go out and accept a project that has deficiencies that are serious in nature. We’ve also talked to the companies that have been on the project as a result of some concerns that have been brought forward in the last couple of days. They have reassured us that all repairs that needed to be done were completed and signed off. There are still a couple of smaller things that have to be addressed, including the scour rock. We need to have the scour rock on the south side to be valuated to see how much has been washed away or redone. It was only on the south side that we had the issues. That is going to be resolved over this next year. The work that was done was not paid for and we have a holdback for that portion of the work and for other deficiencies.

Thank you to the Minister for that. I’m really trying to develop some confidence here and I know this Minister knows that full and complete information is best. That’s what helps us develop a good relationship and confidence in the project. I’d appreciate it if that could continue.

I don’t want to pick away at this, but all things are completed and signed off except for and then there’s these exceptions that we always hear. I’m waiting to when we can really say that what we have on the ground is complete and safe and thorough and completed and paid for and we don’t have any liens or complaints against it and so on.

I want to move to the financial side, which is our main issue today. Just looking at the projections we were provided, I mentioned the rose-tinted glasses. I’d just like to read off some of these estimates from year to year. Our projections in O and M, our increases from year to year are in the orders of 1 percent. By the way, this includes everything, forced growth and so on. One percent? Have we ever seen that? Has that ever happened? Two percent, 3 percent. I’ve never seen those figures. I’ve never read about those figures. As it happens, the three years we are currently projecting to be over our debt wall we happen to have the highest revenues projected. This does not develop

confidence. This begs the question: do we know what we are doing here?

I stated earlier I want to know what the implications are. I think the most important thing is for us to know what the implications are as we take on this additional debt. We can’t do that if we’re coming up with these sorts of projections. I don’t care what the formula is. As a biologist I know when we’re looking at projections we look back at least to our past performance and that’s an important part of the projection. So perhaps the Premier or somebody could explain to me how we’re going to come up with better, more accurate projections this week that will give us the context on which we need to go forward.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Ms. Melhorn.

Thank you, Ms. Melhorn. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I’d just like to follow up on the deputy’s comments in regard to getting comfort from the federal government. I’d like to know when will we have the legal authority from the federal government to be able to have this debt on our books and not have it affect our borrowing limit. I’d like to know when is that going to happen and when can we expect that final decision. And if we don’t get it, what happens if we pass this legislation this week and we don’t have the answer next week, how will this debt be handled on our books?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Premier Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the debt will be handled on our books as we’ve laid out here by accepting that, and the issue of having a letter or the Order-in-Council, as it would be referred to, from Minister Flaherty, my understanding from the staff having discussions between Finance Canada and our own finance staff here that his department is working on the temporary adjustment that will allow us to go beyond that current limit that is set, again, relief from this project. I’ve had that verbally from the Minister of Finance. I put a lot of weight in that and the fact that his staff have followed up in discussions and they’re preparing the documentation to go forward. As for exact dates, I don’t have that with me. We’re continuing to press them for the discussion that could be done. Thank you.

Also, in regard to the temporary adjustment that you’re asking for, I believe the request was for five years. Is that confirmed also, that we’re looking at a five-year adjustment, and after that what happens to the debt after the five-year adjustment has been exceeded? How is that going to be handled on our books?

Mr. Chairman, our request has been for a five-year relief on this. We’re, again as I said, the finance staff from Ottawa and our staff are in discussions. We’re trying to get as much information as possible for what Minister Flaherty is prepared to bring forward to his Cabinet colleagues. Thank you.

My other question was what happens to the remaining whatever’s left over after we basically pay down the debt for the $165 million, after the short time frame we’re looking at, five years? What happens to the debt of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation on our books after the, sort of, little easement that we’re getting here from the federal government? Where does that debt go?

How is it going to be calculated? Is it going to be added to our borrowing limit, whatever the remaining outstanding balance of that debt is?

Mr. Chairman, as the Members are aware, we’ve, in the last couple of years, had some of the largest capital spending in the history of the Government of the Northwest Territories, and to have that happen requires a large cash flow. It’s when those projects are being done and put into service and finishing the construction that we run into the problem of our debt wall if we did not have relief from the federal government. So with this relief, our cash requirements drop down because we go back to the typical capital plan of the Government of the Northwest Territories which is $75 million. Then our cash demand is down, our debt room as forecasted goes back to in the neighbourhood of $100 million available borrowing capacity of the Government of the Northwest Territories once this relief is done, and the debt remains on our books, but it is manageable because, again, our large capital expenditures go back down to a more normal pattern for the Government of the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Can the Minister or the deputy minister of finance tell me exactly what year do we see this changeover...(inaudible)...is what year are we looking at the federal temporary adjustment being concluded so that we then, basically, have to make that decision? Because I think that as we all usually see going into elections and whatnot, it’s usually the year four when most of the capital expenditures are made prior to the election, and in most cases the new government that just came in, it usually takes them two years just to get going. So it will be interesting to see what Legislative Assembly will have to be dealing with this. It’s not going to be the 17th . Is it going to be the 18th Assembly or the end of the 17th Assembly, looking

at the five-year time frame that you’re talking about?

I’ll speak to the first part of that, and Ms. Melhorn can go towards the fiscal strategy that they laid out and presented to Members.

The timelines, as we’ve looked at it, we’re okay in the ’10-11 fiscal year. The ’11-12 year becomes problematic without the relief; ’12-13 becomes an issue, as well. But a five-year relief allows us the flexibility to then get back into a normal pattern, the cash demand is down, there is no impact. But let’s fully recognize that even we, as the 16th Assembly,

when we came into office, without accepting any further debt, we we’re talking about tightening our belts. Every government will have to come up with its own fiscal strategy as a going-forward. Our goal is to ensure that we leave them enough flexibility to be able to manage as they go forward. That’s why

this relief is being sought, and we’ve got that commitment from the federal Minister Flaherty. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier Roland. Ms. Melhorn.

Thank you, Ms. Melhorn. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regard to the remaining debt for the Bridge Corporation after the five years is paid down, how much debt will remain on the books after this five-year window that we’re looking at? Do we have a calculation on how much debt is going to be depreciated in five years and paid down and how much remaining debt is going to be left for the Deh Cho Bridge going forward?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Premier Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarification, he’s talking about the specific debt to the Deh Cho Bridge Project or the debt of the Government of the Northwest Territories, including the Housing Corporation?

Thank you, Premier Roland. Mr. Krutko, for clarity.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m talking about the Deh Cho debt after the five years because we’re not going to really see a decrease in the debt in the first five years because the volumes won’t be there, you’re going to be basically trying to figure out the traffic volumes. So I think because of that, the projected payout over the first five years is going to be reduced compared to the years going forward. So I’d just like to know what’s the projected debt after the five years that we’re going to get the sort of adjustment from the feds?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Premier Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From the projections and the schedule that was attached to the concession agreement, after five years I believe we’d be looking at $155 million.

Thank you, Premier Roland. Mr. Krutko. Next on my list is Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess some of the fundamental questions I really have, have to do with what’s actually changed. You know,

I see this as we head out in two processes. The first one being the idea one that obviously isn’t going to happen, which was everything was funded and paid through the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and obviously that isn’t going to work, but fundamentally the payments I thought the government would be responsible and paying for would be somewhat similar if we ended up being in the circumstance that we are in today. So in other words, now that we’ve taken the debt on directly, we’ve taken the payments on directly, but I guess our contribution and our commitment, in theory, if I understand it correctly, hasn’t changed. So can the Premier or the Minister of Transportation explain to me if anything’s actually changed to our theoretic bottom line, and I’m not referring to our debt wall in this particular case, I’m referring to our payment schedule or commitments that the territorial government would have been directly related to and responsible for. So has anything changed now that the obligation of the loan is directly on the shoulders of the territorial government? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister of Transportation.

Mr. Chairman, the payment schedule hasn’t changed. It’s still identical to what it was. The only change that has been made on this project in terms of the finances is that there is a $15 million supp that was approved in this House that’s added to the project that will have to be repaid through the life of this project and we’re also taking on the full costs of the guarantee that we had onto our books. So that’s a difference, but as to the toll and the self-liquidating portion of this, it would still stay the same and the payment schedule would still stay the same for a 35-year period. Thank you.

By and large can the Minister describe our payments as, again, by and large, self-liquidating to a large extent? Can it still remain to be seen as this is a project that’s paying for itself? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the project is indeed self-liquidating to a certain extent. Fifty percent of the annual costs will be paid through tolls. There is a portion that we are already paying in terms of operating the ice bridge and the ferry, which we believe now is in excess of $3 million that can be put towards the project and of course there’s a contribution that was committed to by this government. So there is probably three-quarters of the project being financed through existing payments or existing costs and new revenues. Thank you.

I appreciate that on the record. With the change in the DCBC, so the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, is it envisioned that the concession agreement value will change as this

finds its way to the point where we have the bridge built and we find that particular role for the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, assuming it still wants to exist and participate? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, that’s something that we are currently working on also. It’s discussions that we started a few weeks ago. Now we are getting closer as to what’s possible and looking at some options that we brought forward and also looking at reviewing some of the options that the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation has brought forward and trying to find a way to deal with the issues that are in front of us. Looking at the concession agreement, whether that’s a required document anymore, or should we move to a new agreement. All those discussions are taking place. We hope to have some resolution in the next couple of weeks if all goes well. The Bridge Corporation and the community of Fort Providence have been very cooperative with us and have worked with us quite well over this difficult time. Thank you.

In reading the Deh Cho Bridge Act I noticed that under the regulation section when they’re drawn up, of course, it looks like Members of the Assembly need to be included in this process even for being kept up to date. That’s under one of the sections. It’s under 10, it’s not important to go to, but it’s under 10-2(b)(1) and I’m just wondering have regulations to this date been brought up or drawn up and have they been developed in any form or fashion. Thank you.

I believe that was the response that I provided earlier on the regulations that are being worked on. We haven’t concluded those. It’s something that we have to have in place before the operation of the bridge comes into play. We expect to have the drafting and everything concluded by the summer before that, and it’s been my practice that we provide the information to the Members so that they are well aware of what we are going to be bringing forward and we’ll commit to doing that. Thank you.

As we’ve all seen that the situation has changed significantly and under one of the sections under the Deh Cho Bridge Act, 6-1(2), the toll is collected for the Deh Cho Bridge Fund and it’s a special purpose fund. I’m just curious as to who controls that special purpose fund, the Deh Cho Bridge Fund, in this particular example. Has that been envisioned or has a solution been found for that particular case at this time, because that’s, if I read the act correctly, where all money in the context of tolls are to be directed. So I’m just trying to find out who controls that fund, especially in light of the situation. Has that been dealt with? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the Government of the Northwest Territories will control

the fund. There is a requirement in the clause that he’s referring to to have a separate accounting of the revenues and expenditures. So that will also be accounted for and provided separate from our overall government accounting. Thank you.

I think the Minister cited the $15 million extra, and if I heard him correctly -- and I ask him to correct me if I’m wrong -- he said that would be charged back to the project under the regulations under Section 10. It talks about the ability to have money deducted from the cost incurred by the government from the amounts payable to the concession area. I’m wondering, that $15 million that was additional because of the change in the project and the project scope that affected the project’s financial bottom line. Is it that type of section that we’ll be drawing back that $15 million? So, therefore, it’s still the $165 million bridge as we originally discussed and theoretically supported?

Mr. Chairman, the project was pegged at $165 million and there is and has been provision because of the $15 million cost overrun, as per our concession agreement, required that that money be recovered through the tolls. That’s what we’re obligated to do.

I’m doubtful but always hopeful, of course, that the Transportation Minister probably can answer this question. It’s regarding Minister Flaherty’s position and, as I have stressed to the Premier who is acting in the capacity of Finance Minister today, my concern on the weight of the position that Finance Minister Flaherty has assured us that this will be coming for special dispensation to be able to carry this type of number on our books. The issue for me is, I guess, satisfying the concern that this will actually be fulfilled. I’m trying to say it in such a way as when does the Premier expect, if he has an expectation date, that we will get special dispensation from the Minister of Finance that our government can add the $165 million debt to our books without it affecting our debt wall?

As time is ticking away I’m just going to add one footnote to that point. When I am in the community, and I certainly don’t shy away from questions whether they are constituents or not, but in the community one of the fundamental bottom lines really coming from people is the fact of will carrying the extra debt on our debt load affect things like schools or health care programs, et cetera? Hearing from the Transportation Minister that our payments or bottom lines are relatively stable if not the same and if not looking better due to the changes that may occur in this process, the one outstanding factor is this dispensation from the federal government to allow us to carry this on without affecting our books.

That’s to explain why I want to be clear and be very sure that is coming. I suspect it’s equally shared in some manner or not with the other Members.

Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the first part of that is the weight I would place in the call that I had and the following actions from that call. February 27th I believe was

the date. I had a call with Minister Flaherty discussing with him the fiscal situation we could find ourselves in as the Government of the Northwest Territories when it comes to the debt situation and the Deh Cho Bridge Project and the call of the lenders to assume that debt. At that point he said he would work with us to deal with that debt.

Following that, we have had discussion between Finance Canada staff and our staff here and we’ve put forward a proposal. We know that they are working on language for Minister Flaherty to bring forward and I’m hoping within a matter, and it’s difficult on this to say, that within a couple of weeks he may be able to address that or get back to us on what the specifics are on that. But he said they would be looking to deal with this in a very timely manner, recognizing this was a couple of days before he was about to address the nation on his budget process. So we realize that they’ve been very busy there, but in that business they have contacted us. We have exchanged a proposal and we know that they are working on wording to go forward that would protect us.

Now, saying that, we could pass this bill today and that won’t affect our debt wall. We won’t go over our debt wall. If we did not get relief, our debt wall would be impacted in 2011-2012, the latter part of the last year of our term. So we’ve got a window to work with and I’m counting on, again, the commitment from Minister Flaherty that he would deal with this in as timely a manner as he can bring it forward on.

Okay. I have a long list. I have Dave, Norman, Wendy, Tom, Glen and Bob, in that order. So, Mr. Ramsay, you’re next.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I take some comfort in the fact that the Premier is talking to the federal Finance Minister. I know the Premier mentioned the fact that I’m a card-carrying Conservative, which is true. Although it’s unusual to bring up party preferences here in this House, the last time I heard that was from our current Finance Minister who had his ABC -- Anybody But Conservative -- campaign going in the run-up to the last federal election. I wonder how that is helping us with our negotiations with the federal government and any other concerns financially that we bring to the federal government. I just wanted to put that out there.

I want to get back to some of these deficiencies that the Minister of Transportation has brought to our attention today. I disagree with him. I think he referred to the scour rock issue as minor. I’m not sure how much money was spent on dumping that scour rock into the Mackenzie River, but to surround four piers in that river was a tremendous amount of rock. To my knowledge that scour rock was prepaid. I know that the Minister had mentioned that it hadn’t been paid for yet, but to my knowledge it was prepaid. We’ve paid for that rock that’s at the bottom of the Mackenzie River. Most of it is probably half way to Norman Wells by now and we had better ensure that those piers are protected. I want to ask the Minister what assurances we have that that rock is going to be replaced around those piers so they are fully protected.

Minister of Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We agree that those piers have to be protected. There is some concern being raised that there was a deficiency on some of the scour rock that was provided for the south side. On the north side all the scour rock was appropriate size and of the quality we were looking for. On the south side there was rock that was placed into the water for protection that didn’t meet the standards and we are analyzing that right now. I would point out, though, that a lot of the provision of the rock was stopped right at the pit because it was recognized that it was the wrong dimensions. We’ll analyze the situation. That is going to be done this year. We are also holding back dollars for work that was performed on the south side. So if it doesn’t meet the standards, the deficiency will not be signed off and it will have to be provided for with the dollars that are being held back.

I think perhaps we’re getting somewhere. I hope people are getting an understanding of why it is that I am hesitant to support this $165 million. I mean, this rock didn’t meet the standards but somebody decided to dump it into the river anyway. What other issues are out there that didn’t meet the standard that are going to come back and get us or have the potential to come back and get us? Obviously if this rock didn’t meet the standards, somebody’s got to be responsible for dumping it off that temporary bridge into the Mackenzie River where most of it was, like I said, of a diameter where it’s probably floated down the river. Somebody approved that. I’d like to know who that was and what recourse we have.

Like I said, I don’t think the Minister responded to this either, that scour rock on the south side was prepaid. I’m not sure how we’re going to go about figuring that out. That rock was prepaid. It was limestone. It wasn’t granite, it was limestone. I’m not an engineer. I took a geology course in

university. Limestone erodes very quickly and it doesn’t have the properties that granite has, which, as the Minister said, was used on the north side. The north side piers are protected with granite. So what are we going to do about the south side piers and the limestone that was put in there?

The scour rock that was used on the south side was not approved. So let’s be clear on that. Whether it floated down to, where did you say? Norman Wells? We’re not sure on that. We’re doing an assessment of what has remained. We don’t expect that rock would have to be replaced, but we would have to provide additional armour rock to make sure that the piers are protected properly. We are going to be doing an assessment. That deficiency has not been signed off. It has not been approved.

If the Minister knows that the scour rock used on the south side didn’t meet standards, again, I’m having trouble understanding if the quality assurances and quality controls are in place on that project how that rock could end up at the bottom of the river. That’s a pretty fundamental question for me. Does the Minister have pictures of that scour rock that was used? Has he seen pictures of that scour rock? Has the department seen pictures of the scour rock? I do have a number of pictures that I’ll table in the House and that I will share with the Minister. I wanted to make that abundantly clear. I know these guys are calling me out a little bit on the information that I have. I just got those pictures Sunday night. We were back here yesterday and I mentioned it to the Minister yesterday in the meetings we had. I’ve been up front and I will continue to be up front. Obviously I don’t take throwing around accusations like workmanship and deficiencies in that project very lightly. I want to know what I’m talking about. I’m not just going to come in here and shoot my mouth off. I’d have to have every assurance from the person that I’ve been talking to that they know what they’re talking about. And I do. I do have a lot of assurance that this individual is credible and what he is saying has a lot of merit. I will share those pictures with you. I’ve told my colleagues here on this side of the House, I told them this morning at P and P, if anybody wants to see the pictures they’re more than welcome to see them. Like I said, I’ll table them in the House so that everybody can see these pictures. They speak to a few issues. One of those issues is that scour rock. I asked the Minister, he said he had some pictures, let’s compare pictures. Does he have pictures of that scour rock that was used on the south side piers?

Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, as I had stated earlier, there’s a very fundamental question here about what’s being said here in the public forum. Even in committee, if

Members, if any Member has information, credible information of deficiencies by people who are ready to put their status on the line, then do that. Let’s deal with the issue. But to continue to wave a flag about and make these comments is very dangerous to the professional credibility of all people.

We have a new project team, Associated Engineering, who is going to take over this and do the audit and provide that information. The Minister has committed to working with committee going forward on that basis. The Member said let’s compare pictures. Well, let’s go beyond just comparing pictures because, I mean, I could sit here and you could show me a picture of a rock. I couldn’t tell you if that was a rock that was, how big, the size, compared, is there a quarter beside it, is it the size of a football or what? The structure of that rock? I couldn’t tell you that. So putting a picture on the table and saying this is what it is, is one thing. The Member himself said in this forum he’s not an expert in the area. So let’s get the experts and let’s get them to verify the information on both sides.

As we have a new project team who will take this on I’m sure they’re not going to take on faulty workmanship and have them sign their names and status on the line to a project that is going to be hauling people across the river. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We can go to Minister Michael McLeod.

Minister of Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member, I think, is assuming that we’re not aware of the deficiencies. We’re completely aware of the deficiencies. We’ve probably got the same pictures. If he wants to compare pictures, that will be fine. We have a list of deficiencies. It gets pretty detailed, right from hole size to length of the bolt that’s sticking out. Scour rock was part of it. We are aware of the deficiencies; we’re dealing with the deficiencies; many of them have been dealt with already. If I’m going to be sitting here answering why every one of the deficiencies has been in place, that’s challenging, but we certainly can share that information as we go forward. We are doing a complete analysis of what has been out there as deficiencies and what has not been signed off. All the companies involved are meeting today and have been meeting all day to talk about any issues that are out there. If the Member wants to bring that forward to them or to us so we can provide it, we’ll certainly follow it up with more in-depth analysis so that all the Members and the people in the Northwest Territories can be reassured that this is a safe project.

Next on the list I have Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to ask about the toll fees and when the Minister will

have some type of solid information in terms of the new information that we’re going to get for the toll fees in light of what some things that may happen in terms of revenue coming in for the payment of the bridge.

Minister of Transportation.

Mr. Chairman, right now we’re looking at servicing some of the cost from this project through revenues generated from tolls. We expect for the first year it’s going to be around $8 million that we would have to use to service the debt and half of that we would expect to raise from tolls. The other portion would be from money that we’re already spending on the ferry service and the ice bridges, and also there’s a contribution from our government on an annual basis.

The other question I have is in regard to the issue around Minister Flaherty and the Minister of Finance in terms of a working relation arrangement. I think what I heard from the Premier, Mr. Chair, in terms of that coming close to some satisfaction, in terms of yes, this will not hinder us in terms of our fiscal forecast, forecasting projects that we have in the future, and that I’m leaning towards the Premier’s voice in terms of the evidence that the Minister is going to do something, the federal Minister. He said something like that. I just need to know if the Premier would, even if it’s some type of indication on paper to show that this is what the federal Minister is going to help us with the situation here.

Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, number one, the federal Finance Minister, as I worked in the previous Assembly as the Finance Minister in the first year of this government and developed a working relationship with Minister Flaherty, has been very straightforward in the sense of where he’s at when he says that he will work on certain issues with us, he has always delivered. When he says no, we’re unable to do that, he says it right up front and is clear with that. So following that discussion I had with him, the further commitment that I have seen that is evidence of that commitment is the fact that his staff and our staff have been in discussions regarding the proposal. I have requested of his office to get some confirmation in writing so that I could share with Members as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. I look forward to that discussion with the Members after he’s had some discussions with the Minister of Finance Canada.

Mr. Chair, in terms of the time frame to complete the bridge, we’re looking at 2011, in terms of this time frame and the amount of work that it is

required, we aren’t too sure how things are going to unfold next week or the day after. We’re under a time frame. There are certain consequences of not meeting the time frame. In his good judgement and estimation, can the Minister of Transportation say that the quality assurance of the project, things that we’re going to be looking at a little closer in terms of the structure, that we’ll be able to meet this time frame in light of what Mr. Ramsay has been saying, in terms of those issues? I just came to know about them and I’m not too sure if that’s true or not. The Minister has talked about some deficiencies. Is that something that we can safely say by 2011 that this bridge will be done and finished and that you’ll have the satisfaction? Because you are right, lives are going to be depending on it, they’re going to be crossing it. It’s very serious about this issue here. I have children or relatives, the same as anybody around here, so we really have to be serious about this. So when you say time frame, I really want to make sure that we are able to meet this time frame, because there are consequences for not meeting this time frame, there are penalties, and I want to make sure that we are prepared with some alternative plans depending on how we go about this. I want to have a few minutes from the Minister to see if he could help me with this question here.

Minister of Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should point out that the issue of deficiencies is part of any project that we have on our books. All projects encounter challenges, be it big or small, there are a lot of things that are always being flagged and this project is no different. Every item that, no matter how small, if it doesn’t meet the code, if it’s not done properly, then it’s flagged and it’s either left until it’s rectified or else a solution is found to fix it. And that list changes. Some things get resolved. As the project moves forward, new issues are added to it. That will continue right until the project is completed, and even after traffic is moving on it I’m sure there will be smaller things coming forward that have to be looked at.

The time frame is something that we’ve had a lot of discussion on with the people that are going to do the actual construction. They point to November 2011. We agree that’s a date that we’d like to see traffic crossing. We have all the steel ordered. We have a new contractor that’s already on site. We have new project management that is going through a transition, and we expect to start to see some of the steel coming on to the bridge site by this summer. So we are already working quite hard to see that this project meets the deadline, I mean the time frame in place and that’s something we don’t want to see any slippage on. Thank you.

Maybe I’ll just remind the House to keep the side chatter to a minimum.

It’s affecting some of the responses here. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, my last question in this round here would be the issue of project management and quality assurance in terms of going forward. I reviewed what the Ministers have put before us and it seems like we really have taken the bull by the horn on this project here with the GNWT in terms of how you set up the org chart and you told us how certain qualified people are going to manage this program, get the bridge built, in terms of that quality management project team initiative.

The one thing I wanted to look at, besides that, is how the community of Fort Providence is going to be involved. Mr. Minister has talked about the involvement of Fort Providence in terms of the Metis and the Dene First Nation on their involvement and partnership arrangements. They have released a press release and they have stated publicly their position and I look forward to seeing what type of arrangements will be made.

I just want to ask the Minister about going forward if he has some draft indication as to when an agreement could be reached with the community of Fort Providence in terms of a partnership agreement. Is that going to be something that’s going to hinder us or is that something that’s going to be just one of the other tasks that needs to be completed in terms of the completion of this bridge? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think right now one of the most concerning issues was to try to get the project stabilized in terms of having a new contractor in place and having all the material ordered and people on site and dealing with the transition. That is taking place right now. The construction, we feel, is now coordinated and it’s going to move forward and we don’t expect that will be affected.

There is a lot of work that’s been done in choosing project management and the new companies that are on the site. We certainly have done due diligence and looked at the background and checked out references and looked at their experience and they have provided us a lot of information and certainly feel free to provide that to the Members if there is a desire to see that.

The community involvement is something that’s, again, ongoing. We’ve, I think, all staked out our positions now and it’s a matter of sitting down and concluding the discussions. The community has expressed a desire to stay involved. They would like to see a lot of the benefits in terms of contracts and things of that nature provided to the residents there. We expect that in maybe two weeks we should have things concluded and be able to share that information to the Members. I don’t know if

there was another question there, but that’s good for now. Thank you.

Next I have Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question I’d like to go back to a comment I made in my opening comments in regard to the revenue and expenditures for this project and in listening to the conversation I’ve been able to glean some figures, which are more up to date than the 2008 figures that we were given earlier. My question is I would like to see a list of revenues and expenditures based on 2010 numbers as opposed to based on 2008 numbers and I’ve managed to gather that our revenue is going to be approximately $4 million from tolls, give or take, $3 million from the operations of the ice road and the ferry and about $2.3 million for the subsidy, which the GNWT has guaranteed, I gathered. But in terms of the expenditures I’m still somewhat, I am in the dark, I’m not somewhat in the dark. I’m told the debt payment is going to be about $7.9 million. I’ve asked the question before and I’ll ask it again: is that debt payment going to be the same every year for 35 years or does that payment schedule change and can we see what that payment schedule is?

The O and M costs, the only figure that I’ve heard is about $700,000, but that’s 2008 and I suspect there’s been some change to expected O and M costs. O and M costs will also be minimal in the first few years and will increase over the years as the bridge gets older. So what is the expectation of the department in terms of how quickly those O and M costs will increase and then there’s the equity payment to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation or whatever entity they become. That, I realize, is up in the air because negotiations are still underway, but I have no real handle on what the expenses are going to be. I’m getting a sense of what the revenues are going to be and I would really like to know if the Minister can either provide that information now or if we can get it certainly before we have to vote on this bill. Thank you.

Minister of Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The expectation will be that there is going to be a requirement for payment on the debt, which is interest plus principal and there’s also going to be O and M costs and that will roughly be around $8 million indexed on an annual basis. The equity payment to the Bridge Corporation is not something we have resolved yet, so we can’t give a firm number and the reason we don’t have up to date, today’s traffic volumes, is because we don’t have the 2010 information yet and that hasn’t been compiled. So it will be quite difficult to provide the information that the Member is requesting before the vote on this takes place. Thank you.

I still didn’t hear a number for O and M costs, but I’ll just choose to carry on.

I have another question and it was mentioned, I believe, by the Minister earlier in reference to the fact that this is, was, a P3 project. Quite some time ago I believe Members saw a draft of a P3 policy and I was just wondering whether or not that policy is anywhere on our radar going into the future. For any projects of a similar nature, are we going to have a P3 policy which has been approved by this House? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. I’ll just respond to the Member’s request to see some of the O and M costs. It was anticipated that the costs for the O and M on the Deh Cho Bridge was going to be around $700,000 a year. However, now that the project has been assumed by our government and things have changed in terms of requirements, such as insurance, we expect that is going to be around half of the $700,000. So O and M we are pegging at $350,000 a year. I’ll let the Premier respond to the rest.

Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve been informed that in fact the Minister of Finance did present a draft policy, I believe, to committee and is awaiting a response. Thank you.