Thank you, Mr. Chair. Repetition, they say, is good, so you will hear some repetition to my remarks. I did keep my remarks brief in general comments on purpose, so I will lay out some of my concerns.

I think there have been a lot of good points made and the fundamental one doesn’t seem to be

getting through, and that is, of course, the process and the unrealistic timing that’s available at this very late stage of the game, six weeks today before the end of the fiscal year to mount this piece of work during what I suspect is the warmest winter on record and will present all kinds of challenges that would impede the already rushed, I’m sure, work to be done during this period for two and a half million bucks.

I do agree, as well, having had the experience of last term and listening to previous Members’ experience, the Minister will understand this on the Deh Cho Bridge project, that there are some disturbing parallels here. But I want to start by noting that that project was probably the biggest fundamental reason for causing us to manage ourselves into the debt crisis of today, which, of course, it’s all wrapped together for our reasons for running back and forth to Ottawa begging for an increased debt limit. Now there is some discussion on what we’re to do with that increased debt limit. I think that perspective is important to be had and it can’t be denied here.

My understanding is things were rushed into with the Deh Cho Bridge project and that’s how we got into that situation. In my brief experience, the Cabinet would continually bring to committee either a done deal or a deal that had to be done immediately or the costs would be greater. Of course, I think when we finally did sign on the dotted line, it was $150 million or $160 million. Now we’re at $192 million or something. As my colleague Mr. Beaulieu predicted, he is suggesting maybe $250 million by the time we’re done. We’ll see. Originally this project was estimated at $150 to $200 million. Most recently the estimate was $250 to $300 million.

I’m having a hard time hearing myself think here, Mr. Chair. In fact, in committee the Department of Transportation told us it was $2.5 million per kilometre, and if my rudimentary math is right, I believe it’s 141 kilometres: 140 times $2.5 million is something like $350 million. I think there is a lot to be said and done yet about what the cost of this project is, but we know it’s climbing with each bit of additional detail that we acquire.

I do appreciate what’s being proposed here is due diligence. We need to do that work. It’s being proposed that we start construction before we’re completing the due diligence, because we’re going to do as much work again next winter, which has been pointed out by one of my colleagues that that seems very odd. Mr. Bouchard, I believe. So I’d like to get more on the understanding there.

Another point, committee requested before Christmas a critical cost-benefit analysis on which to base our interest in this project and decision-making. This week we were finally provided with a very high level look at the economic effects of the

project that was done a year and a half ago and it highlights potential net benefits from the road predicated upon the Mackenzie Gas Project going forward. We heard on the news yesterday that Imperial is looking for a three-year delay and even deciding whether or not they do the road there, so we know what to expect from that standpoint. Disturbingly it also points to a lot of lost jobs and GDP to the territorial government based on lost opportunities because, of course, this highway is essentially a major subsidy to the oil and gas industry and it allows them to forgo using local services and so on and allows them to use their own services brought up from wherever. So this study did highlight that understanding.

Under our currently strapped fiscal dilemma, we have many competing and critical needs for on-the-ground infrastructure. As we jump at this new and very costly project with immature plans to start construction next fall before even our due diligence is done apparently, these other priorities get eclipsed and their potential recedes as the few existing resources get committed in the future. This is exactly what happened with the Deh Cho Bridge project and we will never recover from that. I think of things like the Stanton Territorial Hospital, community energy systems, other infrastructure projects that can help with the cost of living in our communities. These sorts of things come to mind here.

We hear that this project is needed because the area is economically depressed and people need jobs. I agree that this region, which has been characterized by a boom and bust economy for a long time now solely based on the oil and gas industry, is a need of economic development and jobs. But here again we propose a project which provides flash in the pan jobs as I call them, and rather than doing the hard work of determining what is the real beneficial development that will actually contribute to lasting jobs, meaningful jobs that support a local economy, a strong social fabric and a healthy environment, I think we cannot continue to jump at anything because an area needs economic development.

I recognize that this area is economically depressed right now. I would love to find a way to spend these dollars in a meaningful way rather than jumping at anything that happens to be by. Fundamentally though, it needs a sound basis of planning to do that.

Again, this reflects this pattern that I am seeing that is disturbing and, again, the parallel with the bridge project. We are falling into this pattern at jumping at something rather than doing this hard work to come up with a good and lasting development. Again, I think we need that planning. This is exactly how we got into the trouble with our current debt crisis, how we finessed ourselves into getting this serious debt

and forgoing critical infrastructure opportunities. The costs of forgoing such opportunities are, again, permanent and we will likely never recover those costs.

The concern about being a rush job has been posed and clearly this has become a rush job. We just heard about this and we are told this year $2.5 million and another supplemental budget already expected for next fiscal year, yet there are only six weeks to get this work done. It is unlikely that it will get done, I would venture to forecast, because of some the logistic problems. The work will accrue, of course, not to the whole region and so on. As I understand it, it will go to one company and there will be a few jobs, but I suspect most of these dollars will go to the logistical costs. That is where the costs are in this particular work: the equipment and so on.

I think better decisions and benefits can come with solid planning, and a little bit more on that later. But I see my time is up. I am happy to continue comments later, Mr. Chairman, if there are others in line.