Thank you, Madam Chair, and we welcome Minister Miltenberger and his finance team here today and, as well, Transportation. Supplementary appropriations are always a unique animal. As a new Member, it’s a learning curve being a student to the process. I will make my comments brief on at least two of the four items in the supplementary appropriations today, one being the carry-over of $105 million.
As you heard from our previous colleagues, a carry-over of projects is always a grave concern, why we can’t complete them, but we fully understand that there was some territorial-based funding, a large amount of funding that we had to commit in order to get this funding. As a Member who understands business, it’s just good business sense. We understand there will be some carry-over. We’re hoping that this exercise proves that, as in future as we’re doing budgets, these supplementary carry-overs for infrastructure become smaller in nature and more finite. I have zero problem with that number other than hopefully we can work on making improvements on making that supp a lot less in the future.
Investments in the Energy Priorities Investment Plan for $850,000 for the Fort Providence school and the Northern Lights Special Care Facility in Fort Smith. Again, those are warranted and the explanation that the Members received is duly noted and I will be supporting those.
The next two items on the supplementary, obviously, are causing most of the discussion here today. One in which the first of, the Deh Cho Bridge, the $10 million, it has been debated, or not so much debated but introduced in the House here for discussion. Typically, debate means that you are getting information back and forth that’s credible and reliable. But what we’re receiving in nature on the Regular Member side is far from items that could be debated. We’ve been asking the department, we’ve been asking the Minister for more information, valid information, so that as Regular Members we can make an informed decision for the people of the Northwest Territories.
The Minister, in his previous day, was a business owner, a business entrepreneur, like myself. We were business colleagues before we were legislative colleagues, and these would be the same questions I’d be asking him then, as I do ask him now and has been asked by other Members on this side of the House. Passive acceptance is an unacceptable behaviour by Regular Members, which we’re maybe seeing here today, saying let’s just get it done. I don’t agree with that. This is not doing any favours for the Northwest Territories, because this is just condoning activity that needs to be questioned and debated. This is what we’re paid for. This is what our job is for the people of the Northwest Territories and this has to happen.
Right from the get-go, the Auditor General report for this bridge was very clear. It has gaping holes. This risk matrix still has gaping holes. As I said, or my colleagues said, we can’t discuss items that were discussed in camera sessions with the department, but again, very little changes have been done to the risk matrix under the recommendations under the watchful eye of the Auditor General, and that concerns me as we talk about large-scale projects moving forward.
The Department of Transportation has a track record that clearly indicates, and again, there’s no personal agenda here as an MLA. It’s an observation, and I have parliamentary privilege to do that, but they do have a hard time with carry-overs, with large-scale projects. It’s evident. It’s documented and it’s a fact. They have management issues with large-scale projects, as it’s clear with dealing with large projects such as the Deh Cho Bridge. Anyone paying attention to the latest of, I’ll call it nothing less than a fiasco, for creating an agreement-in-principle with an already agreed upon price but then making another contract. I guess, Madam Chair, is where does this end? If we don’t hit the target, are we going to be doing another contract and another agreement-in-principle?
Businesses have to be held accountable. Contractors have to be held accountable. It’s the fact of doing business. You cannot just keep renegotiating for the sake of saving face. Basically, this is what I’m trying to get at. This is an issue of saving face. The government here has a plan. They want to look good. Why wouldn’t they? I would want to look good too. I want this bridge done too. I want to use this bridge. But saving face at the cost of the taxpayers is not a valid argument. Making assumptions that that $10 million is, oh, let’s just get it done and trust us, is not acceptable. Not providing details to the House, legal opinions, expert advice to the Regular Members on this side, is not acceptable. Having a broad brush approach to trying to make Members believe this is the right thing to do, is equally not acceptable. This makes it very difficult for Members on this side of the House to flippantly agree to a $10 million appropriation when, really, we’ve had very little information. We’ve had more information for items that are under $10,000 than I’ve seen for $10 million, and that is of grave concern to me as a person sitting on this side of the House. For $10 million we should get 10 million reasons why. We’re getting $10 reasons why we should be accepting this. From a Regular Member’s perspective, it makes little sense.
I’m not sure how I will be voting on this supp when it comes to this area, whether we have options of removing it, deferring it. I have no idea, Madam Chair, until we get to that line item.
That said, the fourth item on the list is the continuation of the Inuvik-Tuk highway for further engineering and environmental assessment work. This record has been played months ago, in which this side of the House agreed to a $2.5 million appropriation at that time. Again, we told the government of the day, bring back information, keep us informed, and yet, once again, we see money asked, the same amount of money, without having a formal review exactly what that money was used for, what were the findings of the preliminary environmental assessment. Those were not made public. Does this project seem viable? Do we have enough gravel to make this project? Do we need to seek gravel elsewhere? Will this be incurred at a higher cost? The department knows this information but is not sharing that, and yet, we’re here again to ask for another $2.5 million.
At a point in time this story is going to be no different than the story of the Deh Cho Bridge. Anyone who reads this story will clearly see, and the Auditor General has clearly indicated, that that project just went merrily along until that tipping point occurred, and Members at that day had to make a very important decision because the tipping point of that investment occurred. I have asked, and many other Members of this Assembly have asked, what is that tipping point? When is that point where we get beyond that point of no return where people are going to be looking at each other blindly, going, we have to continue because we spent X number of dollars and we just can’t let this fail. It appears when people speak about large-scale projects, and sometimes these northern areas, people are sometimes stereotyped for speaking out. I think that is wrong. It is not about where the project is. It is about the project. It is about what it cost the taxpayers, because at the end, every man, woman and child will have to pay for it. That concerns me, because it should be about the project and the process.
As I said in previous statements regarding the Inuvik-Tuk highway, I do want to see this. I have gone publicly saying that I want to see this, but I also said that we need to proceed with caution. The department and the management team needs to clearly identify what that risk matrix is as we move forward. To date, we have not received it. When asked for it, we were told we have to get more information. It is literally a shell game in terms of getting the proper information to make the right, informed decisions. We just don’t have those tools. Once again we are going to be faced with the daunting task of looking at another $2.5 million, with very limited information. Regular Members cannot do our job properly without being told all the facts. Thank you, Madam Chair.