Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that opportunity. There certainly have been challenges with this project right from the get-go. There have been issues with contractors, challenges with the design that didn’t meet the code. The challenges have been ongoing and I’m not sure if this is what we expected in terms of scenarios. It’s certainly not the one we wanted to be in. However, having said that, we have right now a $15 million cost overrun that we have to accommodate and repay. Now we have to take on this onto our borrowing that will potentially have an impact on our borrowing limit.

I’m quite happy that some of the issues that we’ve been challenged with we’ve been able to resolve. For some time we’ve been dealing with issues on this project. Our staff has worked hard to deal with them and we continue to do so. This time around with the challenges we’re facing on the borrowing limit, we have a way around it. The Finance Minister and the Premier have talked to the federal people and they have indicated that they will give us some relief. I guess that’s refreshing to hear that we can work our way around it.

There is still potentially a lot of room in our budgets when we come to the five-year point. I know that’s a concern for a lot of Members, but we have to look at it from that standpoint of what’s realistic and where we are.

Next on the list I have Mr. Beaulieu.

The Member has made a motion. The motion is being circulated. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I suppose this is one scenario that we should be asking for the 10-year period rather than the five-year period, but that’s just to me delaying the inevitable. This is a situation that this government

has gotten itself into and I think we have the responsibility or should have the responsibility to try to get ourselves out of it the best that we can and not saddle a future government with the debt.

My belief is we probably should take a look at the infrastructure spending next year on our capital projects and we should look at rolling that up and putting that money into this project to make sure that we do take responsibility. Now, that will mean projects around the Northwest Territories not getting concluded, but that’s the responsible thing to do. That’s this government taking care of things and not leaving it to the next government if it’s five years or to the future government if it’s 10 years. That’s even if we do get a commitment from the federal government to do this. I really hope we do get something, but my belief is that we should take that responsibility on. We should go into that with our eyes wide open and try to make sure that we do not saddle future governments with this debt the best that we can. We want to leave office in 18 months not hanging this over the head of future governments. If we can downplay that somewhat by taking some capital spending next year and directing it towards this project, then that’s what we should do. Bite the bullet for a few years and pay this off and be done with it. That would be my recommendation. I can’t see myself, well, I’ll support it. I will support it because I’m at the... I don’t know what else to do.

Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make the motion because I don’t view this debt as something that appears to be a regular type of debt. It seems that our other debt we’re able to move on it quickly if we choose to do so. We use our infrastructure money surpluses in order to reduce our overall debt. At the end of the year, we always have the option to put money into our debt if we wish to do so.

This Deh Cho Bridge debt is not the same. We can’t pay it down. If we pay it down then we’re going to pay penalties. The 35-year term, like I indicated in my earlier statement, at 3.17 percent is fairly reasonable and I kind of view this as a self-liquidating debt and to move too quickly on it in five years I think the Premier indicated that the debt would drop to about $155 million. I’m thinking that roughly calculating over a 10-year period that could drop to about $140 million making it easier and spreading the pain out.

For me it’s not like saddling the future government with a debt. We’re going to have to anyway with the next government or the government right after that in a five-year term. I think with a 10-year thing it gives the future governments two full terms to be able to try to deal with this debt and be in a good position at the beginning of the two governments from now, the 18th or 19th Assembly, to be able to

look at that and prepare at least for 10 years each year to reduce the amount of the overall debt that you can reduce by using surplus. This debt will remain. If it’s $140 million at that time, unless we want to pay huge penalties and get out, it will remain there. This is actually a real simple solution to not putting or affecting or negatively impacting infrastructure spending for this government in the immediate future when we need to spend some infrastructure dollars, especially in the small communities.

Generally, the way the economy is, infrastructure spending may be essential to the survival of the economy of the NWT. This stands in our way. This is one way of pushing it aside for an additional five years without it having an impact.

Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I looked at the fiscal updates along with all the other Members and I’m not really convinced that spreading it out for an additional five years will be of any benefit at all. I think our fiscal forecast showed that even without the Deh Cho Bridge debt on our books we still had to have some strong fiscal measures for the following year. I think that’s an important aspect. It doesn’t do us any good to have special over-expenditures for a longer period of time, I don’t believe anyway. So because I’m not convinced. I won’t be supporting this motion. I’ll abstain. Thanks.

Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be voting for the motion.

---Laughter

I feel strongly I can make that commitment. I think an important factor to emphasize here, although it’s a side of this fundamental issue which is the fact that this $500 million debt wall is an arbitrary number set by an Order-in-Council by the Government of Canada on us. It has no basis or values, in my view, that speak to the fact that is a $500 million debt wall a reasonable debt wall for this government in its ability to pay. You know, it doesn’t speak to the bigger problem. I mean I support the motion, but the problem is this motion, it’s not asking the direct question, which ultimately is the fact of why does the GNWT carry a debt wall, and this motion speaks to ways that we could avoid that problem and that’s why I’ll support that.

I only wish that the federal government would recognize, certainly within our lifetime as a government, although I don’t necessarily see that happening, our debt should be based on the principle of being able to pay versus not pay and debt should be considered a ratio of us being able to make reasonable payments. This motion is a response to finding a way to work around that and if Canada could find it in its heart to maybe explain to

us why we deserve a $500 million debt wall I know it would certainly be appreciated from my point of view because, again, it reflects nothing in my view of our ability to do our job here. That policy makes no sense to me in my mind.

Our government had come out with a fiscal responsibility policy a few years ago and I thought it was a good quality piece of material that the Finance shop came up with and I think it spoke well to the way this government manages debt, yet we continue to be straddled with this problem. This motion speaks to finding a way to work around it, but the sad thing is we never seem to be able to deal with the real problem, which is the federal government continues to control our territorial government, and not only our government, lastly, Mr. Chairman, the Yukon government as well as the Nunavut government. No other province would stand for this and it’s unfortunate. Thank you.

To the motion. Premier Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, when this issue first came up I approached the Finance Minister. I had to call, had a commitment to work on a relief project specific and at that point then followed up with committee and informed Members, as I have done here, that we developed a proposal that looked at five years. That’s what’s in front of them. We don’t know what they’re going to respond with, but I just felt that I needed to put that down as well, just for comment. Thank you.

Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you. I don’t want to be contrary and not support the motion, but, I move the committee strongly recommends that the Premier of the Northwest Territories take immediate action to seek federal authority for a temporary increase to the territorial borrowing authority. Well, good luck with that. I mean we just had it raised from 300 to 500 not so long ago and that was a big ordeal.

We’re not on a shopping trip here. We’re not going down to the federal government and saying, you know, we’ll take one of those or one of those, we’ll take 10 years instead of five years, we’ll take, you know? I mean I think I’m going to be really, really happy when I see in writing that the feds have actually concurred with our original request. I mean, to ask for more, I think we’re wearing glasses that have rose tint to them. I’m going to be very appreciative if Minister Flaherty grants our request. I’m going to be very, very happy. So now to go back and try and double that time, I don’t know. Like I said, I’m not trying to be contrary, I mean it’s a great idea, but I just don’t think it’s going to wash. Let’s just try and get in writing and get it tied up what we initially asked for. That would be my strategy.

To the motion.

Question is being called.

---Carried

We’re dealing with the Department of Transportation, capital investment expenditure, highways, not previously authorized, $165.439 million. Agreed? Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few more questions. I know it’s getting late and people want to probably get home and do other things, myself included. I just had a few other questions. I guess the first one going forward is I just want some assurances that the oversight on the site is going to be done by an independent third party and I think that we talked a little bit about this, the Minister and I, in another meeting we had, and I just want to get some assurances from him that all of the quality assurance and quality control there will be of an independent nature and companies performing quality assurance and quality control won’t be directly related to other companies doing work on that site. I think that’s a conflict of interest in my mind, but maybe if I could get some assurances that that’s not going to happen. Thank you.

Deputy Premier, Mr. Neudorf.

---Laughter

Just for the record, that’s deputy minister of Transportation, Mr. Russell Neudorf. Mr. Ramsay.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Again, I wanted to get back to, and I hate to have the Minister of Transportation and his staff think I’m being petty or I’m getting into too much detail on this project, but, you know, excuse me, but if we dump $1.5 million worth of rock into the Mackenzie

River that we shouldn’t have dumped in the river, I think somebody should be concerned about it and I hope they appreciate my concern.

You know, if those piers aren’t protected, eventually it is going to be an issue of safety for those piers and for the travelling public. So I don’t bring these up, I’m not just making this stuff up on the fly. I mean, it’s real. Somebody approved dumping $1.5 million worth of rock into the Mackenzie River that didn’t meet standard and I think that’s a question that we need some assurances that that kind of thing is not going to be happening on this project.

I’d like to ask the Minister specifically how often did the Department of Transportation... I know we’ve got people working from the department on the project and we’ve had them, you know, supposedly on site here for a while, I’d like to ask the Minister if he could let us know when exactly our department staff was on site during the construction, 2008-2009. How many days did our staff actually spend there on that site looking at the work that was being done? Thank you.

Minister of Transportation.