Next I have Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a number of questions as outlined in my general comments, but to begin with, thanks to Ms. Bisaro for asking a bunch of the questions I wanted to ask and Mr. Beaulieu as well. I was going to start with the question Mr. Beaulieu just asked, which is why five years. Is there any chance we can look at getting a six or a seven? Even an extra year or two would help us an awful lot. I’m looking at the forecasts of what our debt is going to be, and in 2015-2016 we are still quite in debt and if we had a couple of extra years it might give us a little more comfort moving forward considering that we would still be significantly in debt on the bridge. Are there any chances that those discussions with the feds can include the possible negotiation for an extra year or two taking us to six or seven? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Premier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, our initial proposal to federal Finance staff has been a five-year window. We are unable to confirm at this time if that is what they presented to their Minister to bring forward. I could have additional conversations with them, but I know at this point trying to get it through again, his comment was short-term relief, project-specific and

we are waiting to see what that actually means in the final documentation. Thank you.

Seven years isn’t that long. I would encourage you to try, if you can, to get some additional time in there.

One of the other questions I wanted to ask was with respect to qualifications of the new project management team. As indicated, I don’t have confidence that the project management team put in place by the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation has the knowledge, skills and abilities to deal with a project of this magnitude. This is a huge infrastructure project and I think if we had some individuals in the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation who had the background to deal with such a large infrastructure project, we might not be where we are today. So I’m happy that we have a new project management team, but I would like to hear from the Premier and the Minister about this new project management team, the Associated Engineering and what their qualifications are and why we should have confidence that they are going to be able to manage a project of this magnitude without putting us in further discomfort. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister of Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not sure if that’s something we want to start reading off. Do we have that with us? We have the background information. We have looked at their experience, their references and the different individuals that are involved in the project, including the ones, the engineering and the staff that will be working directly for this project, and are quite comfortable that they have the qualifications. We have a package for almost all the companies that are working for us or are signed on as part of this project. We can provide that to the Members.

Thank you for that. I’m looking more for the primary project managers on this project. Have they got bridge experience? Have they got experience building bridges of this capacity and this size? Can we have some confidence that the team we put in place to replace the team that wasn’t able to build us a bridge can build us a bridge within the timeline provided? You’ve told us over and over again, and I hope you’re right, that 2011 will be the time that you build the bridge by. Does this project management team have the knowledge, skills and ability to make that happen? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairman, that’s quite specific information. I will ask the deputy of Transportation, Mr. Neudorf, to respond with information that he has.

Deputy Minister Neudorf.

Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to thank the Minister and the deputy minister for that. That didn’t seem so hard. I think that’s important information and I think the people of the Northwest Territories want to know that the people we’ve put in charge have the skills. I’m happy that you’re confident and I’m happy you went through the process that you went through to get individuals that you’re confident in.

With respect to the timeline, how much involvement of these people, these experts that you’ve brought on as your project management, how much involvement have they had and how much disclosure have they had from the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation to develop this timeline for November 2011 as an opportunity for me and you and the residents of the Northwest Territories to drive across this darn thing?

I’d like to thank the deputy minister for that. I sure hope he’s right.

The last little bit that I’d like to talk about and get some comfort around is the cost control on this project. When we look at what’s coming in and what needs to go out it’s a pretty fine line of us being able to bring in enough money to be able to cover what our annual cost is without having to find money elsewhere. What assurance do you have that we can control the costs on this project so that they don’t inflate out of control? Some Members have suggested numbers but I’m not sure where those numbers come from so I’m not going to re-quote them, but there have been some pretty high quotes. How are we going to assure and how are the project management team going to ensure that our costs don’t get out of control and that we stick within the $181 million that we’ve already projected?

Three seconds to spare. Is it a fixed-price contract?

Next I have Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to carry on a little bit on the fiscal environment that I was mentioning earlier. I want to make sure I have some things right here. Our annual payments will be about $8 million per year, including a net of about $2 million new dollars each year. After a five-year period we have federal support for extra debt. We will have paid about $40 million for a reduction in the principal of about $10 million, leaving about $150 million in principal debt on the books. Over this same period we’ll reduce our current debt, which is estimated at $215 million at the end of this fiscal year to about $145 million; a difference of minus $70 million over that five-year period. This while servicing almost a billion dollars in new infrastructure as well as the considerable aging infrastructure we have in place.

The projections show that we will do this by unrealistically, in my mind, low annual expenditures and some favourable revenues. Just for perspective, I don’t think that after all the angst and discord that we were able to anywhere near achieve the reductions we wanted between the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 fiscal years. I’d be interested in what the increase was in our O and M between those two years. Yet we’re asking the next Legislative Assembly to not only do better than we did there, but we’re asking them to do better every year. That’s a pretty amazing ask.

My points here are that just because we’re allowed to do this by our federal patron does not mean that there will not be severe implications to the services and infrastructure we provide to our public. That’s the first point. The second one is, because these are unrealistic projections, if we bank on them we will be in even more troubled water than we currently find ourselves.

I don’t see much contingency planning on a large-scale basis by the Department of Finance, but perhaps there is for eventualities that during the life of our term certainly seem to come to pass on a fairly regular basis. I’m wondering what contingency planning we do have on a government-wide basis by the Department of Finance that will inform our remaining term and that of the next Assembly. Recognizing that there are these severe implications.

Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Every Government of the Northwest Territories when taking office is faced with severe implications. I’ve been a Member of the Legislative Assembly for four terms and I think right at the start of my term we talked of debt walls. We’ve always avoided them by taking the right fiscal strategy and managed to keep the government in a place that keeps ourselves moving along.

The Member has talked about unrealistic expectations. The expectations that are presented

are presented on a fiscal strategy that Mr. Miltenberger presented in his budget that the Members of the Assembly had a chance to review and passed in this Assembly. So to now call them unrealistic, I did not hear that being mentioned to Mr. Miltenberger in that way.

Yes, there are real implications here. If things are to go totally off the rails, if we had another catastrophe, right now all our capital projects are on our books, accounted for, moving ahead as they typically would. This is the one project that was outside of our system. We don’t have another one that’s outside the system in that area. We feel we have a fix in place going forward specifically to this project that’s before us. As to the other fiscal strategies, the Minister will have to come back in his business planning process, as he does annually, to deal with that.

The other one is the fiscal strategy is set with the support of Members. So if things need to change he would have to gain that support. At times, for example as Mr. Miltenberger went out with possible tax initiatives to see if there was new revenue that could be sought. After seeking public input and input from the business community and the downturn of the economy it was felt this was not the appropriate time. We would have to continue to weigh those options as we go forward. So with future governments of the Northwest Territories either you increase your revenues or you decrease your expenditures. We took the road of trying to reduce our expenditures to allow us some more flexibility and we have gained that flexibility. Now, with this Deh Cho Bridge Project coming onto the books, if approved by Members we’ll be able to manage this through and as presented by the Department of Finance with the borrowing capacity extended to us by the federal government project specific. We’ll be able to manage our way through this one as well.

Some used to say, every government would say we’ve always talked about this proverbial debt wall that we never seem to get impacted on. That’s because the fiscal strategies at the time presented helped us stay off that debt wall and we continue to present those scenarios to Members as we go forward. We fully recognize that there are severe potential future impacts if things were to not go this way. If the federal government was not to work with us, if the Members of the Assembly said no to this bill, there would be immediate fiscal impacts. There would be immediate impact to capital projects and there would be immediate impact to O and M. We believe we have found a way to manage through this so that’s not the case.

I’m hoping that Members will see that we manage to always stay off the debt wall by the fiscal strategy. We have put an action plan in place that would see this and we’ve had to adopt one for this

we feel will keep us whole in the 16th Legislative

Assembly. It will provide the 17th Legislative

Assembly as they start out with the flexibility they will need. That aside, the next Assembly will have to adopt their fiscal strategy going forward.

It’s interesting that the Minister mentions the budget this year. It was up over 7 percent. I think it was 7.5 percent, something like that. The projections the Cabinet has come up with here were 1 percent. I’m wondering how that fits with what the Premier has just said. The projections for next year are 2 percent. That’s exactly what I mean by unrealistic. If we’re going to go into this with those kind of ridiculous figures, we’re looking for real serious trouble. This $165 million on top of a 7 percent increase this year would equate to something like a 20 percent increase. This is not business as usual. I’m sure the Premier would regret having said or implied such a thing. I would welcome any more perspectives the Premier might have to offer that would actually be based on reality. Given that we have never achieved this, and the Premier I’m sure through all that we’ve been through remembers the discord and angst of trying to get some reductions in our first year. Or second year. Between the first and second years. It’s not easily done and that’s what we’re saddling. Subsequent to people with....

We might get some relief -- I hope we do -- from the federal patron, as I mentioned. But how long will it be for and given that the payments don’t really do a great deal to that principal it takes a long, long time before it really helps us out here. Like I say, $40 million over the first five years will get us $10 million reduction to the $155 million. As the projections, again, at the same time, requiring that we reduce our existing debt, not bridge debt, by $70 million. How realistic is this? If we’re going to go forward, we’re going to need serious reference figures on which to base our decisions. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, again, I go to the fact that the Minister of Finance tabled his budget, brought his business plans to community members. The fiscal strategy is not different than when he presented that to Members. It’s not my plan. It’s not the Cabinet’s plan. It’s been through our committee system, it’s been to the floor, it’s been accepted by Members. So, as previously, it seems easy to separate one’s self from some of the tough choices that need to be made when we accept the fiscal strategy, but that’s been presented. That’s not a new scenario because of this process. And, again, I go by the fact that the Minister of Finance tabled his budget, put a fiscal strategy in place, and that’s been put in place.

The other number the Member used was $70 million. I’m not sure which fiscal strategy that he’s working off, what sheet he’s working off. I know the Minister of Finance went to committee with a

number of scenarios of that and I’d have to look at or have him respond when he’s able to or have Ms. Melhorn provide some details on the scenarios that we’re working on that we’ve presented the proposal forward on that basis. Thank you.