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.

Ms. Bisaro.

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thanks to both Ministers for that and I appreciate the estimate of the O and M costs. If it so happens that sometime down the road that the expenses for the bridge are more than the revenues that we take in, how will that debt be handled by this government? Who is going to cover the excess expenditures in any particular fiscal year? Thank you.

Minister of Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s a hypothetical question, but at this point we would expect that we would treat it as if it was a cost overrun and it would be recovered and recouped as traffic volumes went up. Thank you.

Thanks for that. My next question has to do with I believe a stated commitment by at least one or both Ministers to ensure that, I think I heard in remarks earlier today that we will ensure that future governments will not be able to enter into large projects or agreements on large projects towards the end of any Assembly’s term. I just wondered if either the Premier or, I guess the Premier, could advise how he intends to make sure that that doesn’t happen. Thank you.

Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t believe I responded to that particular question. The area of a government’s outgoing days, the Cabinet, its authority, seeing if there’s an emergency of some nature that always has to be taken into consideration, but I would say that because of a project like this and the nature of what’s happened from it, we would have to get a process, a commitment, that outside an absolute emergency that it be business as usual that would go on and I mean that’s payroll, that’s your programs and services in our communities that are ongoing day-to-day initiatives. So you’ve got my commitment at least in this 16th Assembly that I

won’t be saddling the next government with a scenario that we’ve been faced with. As for going forward, again that would be the will of the Assembly-of-the-day as to just how they wanted to proceed. Thank you.

Thanks to the Premier for that response. I appreciate his commitment and his pledge not to go to places we’re already in.

My last question has to do with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. I know we are undergoing negotiations with them and trying to determine what form that particular corporation is going to take, keep or become. But I wondered two things: do we have a responsibility to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation shareholders? Does this government feel that we have a responsibility to their shareholders? The other question I had is if the corporation is dissolved, whether or not this government will incur a cost to either the shareholders or somebody if the corporation is dissolved. Thank you.

Minister of Transportation.

Mr. Chairman, that’s something that is yet to be determined. We are having discussions, as I’ve stated. We’ve had some already. We’re going to be meeting on Thursday with some of the people from the Bridge Corporation and look at a way to move forward. They’ve brought some options forward. We are also developing some positions. So it’s a little early to say if there is going to be any cost incurred by us.

One last question, I guess. I understand that we currently have a Deh Cho Bridge Fund and I mentioned in my remarks that I think we ought to keep the project costs for this particular project separate from the costs of sort of regular Department of Transportation costs. I wonder if the Minister of Transportation could advise whether or not that is something he would consider and if he would commit to do that. Thank you.

The act requires us to keep a detailed accounting of all the revenues that arise from this project and all the expenditures, so

that’s something we will be obligated to follow. Thank you.

Thank you. Next I have Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the 35-year loan. I am going to have to assume that the rate on the 35-year term must have been a very good rate in order for the government to support the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation from signing a loan that has one huge long term in it. I’ve been told by the deputy that’s maybe industry standard, but if we go back to using a scenario of a mortgage right now, today a two-year mortgage is 2.7 but a five-year mortgage is 5.2 roughly . So, you know, as the term gets longer, the interest rate usually gets larger so that the lender is trying to protect themselves as much as they can if they are going to lock into a long-term loan. Since the GNWT supported a rate of lock-in for this length of time, I have to make the assumption that it was a very, very good rate.

With that, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, in order to ensure that in future that the future of the Northwest Territories is not mortgaged, that we look at asking the federal government to treat this loan as a self-liquidating loan considering that the expenditures that were already in place are going to be transferred to service this debt. Then there’s going to be also tolls that are going to service this debt and that there will be a smaller portion of money annually put in by the Department of Transportation to service this debt. Therefore, would the Minister consider what is the feeling of the Minister, or the Premier I should say, what is his feeling on what would happen if he was to approach the federal government to say that looking at a permanent debt limit increase of, say, $150 million and start to treat this portion of the debt as a self-liquidating debt? That would ensure there is no impact five years down the road on infrastructure items for, especially like my concern, a small community and so on. That’s all.

Minister of Transportation.

Thank you. I will just speak to a couple of issues that the Member has raised. First of all, he’s requested some information that I believe will be in the concession agreement in terms of who signed it, when it was signed. All the information is on the government website. There’s a lot of information there. There are probably 70 to 80 schedules that he can certainly look at and review.

He’s also mentioned the loan. The terms of the loan, it’s a really return bond and the interest rate is at 3.17 and it’s a loan that includes the outstanding principal on a yearly basis. Why did we sign such a deal on those terms? At the time that we signed it, it was an attractive deal. It was for certainty. We wanted to lock it into the long term. Unfortunately,

since then, the interest rates have dropped and it doesn’t look as attractive.

He’s also raised the question on whether it’s possible to get out, whether it’s feasible. Of course, if the interest rates go up, that would be something that could be considered but we’d still have to find a way to pay out the cost of this loan. The terms of the loan requires $8 million to be indexed on an annual basis and maybe that’s why the numbers aren’t adding up for the Member. It’s increasing all the time on an annual basis.

Whether it’s locking us in for the long term, Mr. Chairman, this was the intent, was to have this piece of public infrastructure paid for by traffic volumes that will be travelling through in that part of the Territory in the future. So that was the intent of how this project was going to be financed and it’s still the intent to have the project financed that way.

As to some of the other questions, I will refer to the Premier.

Premier Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the other question that was asked if we approached the federal government to look at this as self-liquidating debt and treat this as a permanent bump up to our borrowing limit, again I talk about the relationship with Minister Flaherty and when he states on it, he’s honoured his word both when he said we are unable to do something or when he can do something. He made it clear that this was going to be short-term relief, that we would not see a permanent adjustment to our debt limit, so I know at that point that’s off the table.

As for self-liquidating debt, it is treated partially by that, but the formula, I guess as a way of putting it, the previous government approved the $2.28 million going into it as an additional top-up on top of our ferry service and ice road crossing service and the rest in a toll. So that process remains the same and is in place.

As well, as I stated earlier, in my discussions with Minister Flaherty it was made clear that this would not be a permanent adjustment. Thank you.

Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if 3.17 percent is buying some certainty for the GNWT for the long term, I’m okay with that. I think that’s actually not a bad interest rate even in today’s standards. So I guess my only question is that my fears now are not so much. I mean, I have fears about the cost. That’s something I have already talked about. My fears are the impacts; the impact of removing the short-term dispensation from the federal government for five years. When that gets removed and if this government is not in a position at that point to be able to assume the

roughly -- I believe the number of that was given to another colleague -- $155 million, if this government cannot assume that within the $500 million debt wall in addition to the two self-liquidating debts that are in place for the Housing Corporation and the Power Corporation, it would then become an issue. So would it be possible then for the Premier to try to get a bit of a longer term on this debt to a point where the debt would be reduced by a greater amount and then down to $155 million looking for maybe a 10-year term on this dispen... -- I’m sorry, I can’t say the word, whatever -- the special borrowing limit that’s going to be approved by the federal government and see if that would be something that’s possible as opposed to a five-year window looking at maybe 10 years down the road that would give us more opportunities, a longer term to recover. We don’t have to recover so sharply. What is the Premier’s position on maybe going for a longer term? Thank you.