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.