I know from my participation here that we have a record of requests for dollars. Obviously, nickel and diming would not be the right term here because these are very significant amounts of money, but they are cumulative, that have eventually proved to be insufficient for the task at hand. In other words, we were told they would achieve this and they haven’t, and we’ve added and so on. I am very concerned about this project in general, as the House is well aware that this is completely in line with expectations that this cost will escalate and that we are, really, underestimating the significance of this project in terms of costs and future costs. That is certainly a concern.

My question would be: Will this be the final request to take us to completion of all of the information needed on which to base a go/no-go decision, or can we expect other requests? I assume we would have in hand as a go/no-go basis, environmental assessment cost estimates, as we heard earlier, and they would all be provided to committee, not just the lowest one, I assume, feasibility work and permitting. If I can get a response to that.

As we approach this project, the decisions made to ask for the funds in increments so that we would be reporting back to the Legislature and justifying the expenses because of the interest and concern about the project, as opposed to asking for a large amount of money and then at some point in the future coming back. We chose to come forward on an as-required basis so that we would always be before the House as a check and balance to make sure Members were fully engaged. When we conclude this final $2 million worth of work, we will have the information we need to put a package before this House and before the federal government.

Thanks to the Minister for that response. That was a good response to my question. I appreciate his perspective. My experience, as I mentioned, is a little different in terms of what we experienced on the ground. We were told what would be achieved with the dollars. It wasn’t, and they came back for more dollars. That is a concern for the project in its entire extent that we will be monitoring and that we will bring that perspective to the table for any final decision, I would expect, as I would expect Cabinet would want to consider as well. Thanks much to the Minister. That’s all the questions I had.

Madam Chair, the Minister of Transportation would like an opportunity to, as well, make a comment, with your indulgence.

Is

committee agreed?

Minister Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to follow up on Minister Miltenberger’s response to Member Bromley. To the backdrop of all of this is the fact that the Government of the Northwest Territories has never had to do an EA on a project of this size and this nature. That has led us to do it incrementally. That is a component to this, too, that I just wanted to put out there.

Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister’s remarks. I understand that, and that’s undoubtedly a contributing factor to these underestimates and part of the point that I was raising. I understand that we’re stepping out here, so we need to bring that into consideration as we make our estimates and so on.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Next, I have Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have much the same concerns about this expenditure as does Mr. Bromley. I would like to, first off, ask the Minister, he mentioned that we have spent $9.5 million to date on this project. Could I know what amounts were spent in what years up to this point?

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Neudorf.

Thanks to the deputy minister for that clarification. I think we’ve spent almost $10 million to date on this project and we’re now being asked for another $2 million to finish what needs to be done, as the Minister of Transportation would say. I appreciate this is a large project. I appreciate it’s new for us to do an environmental assessment, but I am concerned that it’s almost like we’re, you know, Executive is coming back and kind of picking at us, you know, just a million here or $2 million there. This is the second time in this budget year

that we’re being asked to put money into the Inuvik-Tuk highway. I want to be sure that we’re not throwing good money after bad, I guess, is where I’m at. I don’t yet believe that we have seen the justification for the project in total.

I appreciate the Minister of Transportation’s earlier remarks that there are decision points to come. I think it’s incumbent on each of us as Members to very seriously consider each decision point that we are presented with, and I hope we get lots of them, because it’s been said before and I agree, this is beginning to feel like a bridge project, and I sure as heck don’t want to go there.

The other thing that is concerning me about this particular $2 million request, but also all the requests that are within this supp, is that it is putting us even further in the hole in terms of our supplementary reserve. We will be, if we pass this supp as proposed, almost $10 million in the hole from our supplementary reserve. So that has an impact on our costs as a government because it will require short-term borrowing for us to deal with the ins and outs of our cash flow.

So the fact that we are so much into our supplementary reserve and beyond is in part due – a large part, I think – to this particular project, and there are a few other things, as well, but it’s not something which I recommend us doing as a matter of course, and it’s my understanding from the Finance Minister that going in the hole in our reserve is not something that he wants to do as a matter of course. I felt I needed to comment on it. So that’s all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Member’s concern. One of the impacts on our current circumstance was the $10 million we put into this project a number of months ago. The money we spent that we didn’t anticipate was extra money on the bridge, we spent extra money on a number of different areas. But we appreciate the Member’s concern. We are still going to hit our fiscal targets, as we laid out in our fiscal plan to the Members. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In regard to this supp before us, being from the Beaufort-Delta and understanding the course of the project as it has come before the Legislative Assembly since I’ve been in the Assembly, it is something that needs to be done and to get those kinds of reports brought forth so that we can make a good decision. This funding needs to actually go through the supp and get approved so that we can get those extra geotechnical studies that need to be done ,so we

can make good decisions on whether this project goes through or not.

I’m not sure if this supp was not to go through, how that is going to affect the Department of Transportation, if they’d have to look at finding funds elsewhere, but this is something that I feel needs to be done. It’s something that we’ve invested in throughout the past year plus, and it’s something that I do support. I just wanted to make a comment in terms of supporting this to make sure that we do get the right studies done to make the best decisions that we need to going forth on this project. So more of a comment, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Any further comments? Page 8, Transportation, capital investment expenditures, highways, not previously authorized, $2 million, total department, $2 million.

Agreed, thank you. I would like to thank Minister Miltenberger and the witnesses for their participation here today. Mr. Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could escort the witnesses out of the Chamber, please.

Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that consideration of Tabled Document 83-17(3), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2012-2013, be now concluded and that Tabled Document 83-17(3) be reported and recommended as ready for further consideration in formal session through the form of an appropriation bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. The motion is in order.