Thank you, Madam Chair. The biggest concern obviously is the Tuk to Inuvik highway. I am in support of the funding. I do wish this was in the South Slave. I think we also need some of the work and some of the economic development, but I think it is better to move ahead with this project, get the upfront work done, do our due diligence. At the same point, I have some concerns to make sure that after that due diligence is done, we have an evaluation of this project. At that time we can assess whether we want to carry forward. Hopefully at that time we will have worked out our deal with the federal government on their 75/25 deal to the completion of the project, not to the maximum of $150 million.

I would also like to see the department have a plan of how they are going to implement the northern content, like I have indicated in the House before. I want this money to be spent in the North so that it cycles through the North and goes to northern contractors and northern companies. I trust that the Minister of Transportation is also the Minister of ITI and maximize the benefits to the North and that these dollars stay in the North.

My colleagues have expressed a lot of the concerns and I won’t repeat a lot of them, but I definitely will be assessing, once the due diligence is completed, whether it is viable for this project to go forward.

It bothers me a little bit to say we are going to be spending $2.5 million just like it is a drop in the bucket, but millions before we have to assess this project, but on a $250 million project there is some upfront costs that have to be dealt with.

I support the funding for right now. I think it is something that we have to go forward with right now as opposed to delaying it for a year. There are a bunch of projects throughout the North, especially in the South Slave that are always being held up by one process or another. Now we have an opportunity to maybe spend some money in the North and get some progress getting going in the

Northwest Territories. They also need the work. I support the project right now. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Member for his comments and I will defer the response to the Minister of Transportation. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Member’s thoughts on the funding. I will say that I am of the same belief that in a project of this size, the benefits, as much as possible, accrue to the businesses and the residents of the Northwest Territories and the majority of that money stays here in our economy and doesn’t end up in some southern economy somewhere. I think those are things that we need to strive towards and certainly it is my belief that we can sort out a procurement of the highway that will ensure that that happens. That is a ways away. Today we need to ensure that we can get the upfront work done, the due diligence.

I really do appreciate the Member’s support and look forward to his continued support for the Tuk-Inuvik highway. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. We are going to move on with general comments. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you. I’m speaking in favour of this commitment that we’re making to ensure that the northernmost part of the Northwest Territories realizes some opportunities of ensuring that overall a development of the Mackenzie Highway is completed. I support this initiative to ensure that a major infrastructure project of that nature is realized, that it be linked to the overall development of the Mackenzie Valley Highway.

I realize the significance of the $2.5 million that’s been committed. Also at the same time I realize that it’s part of our duty as government to ensure that we do share costs of infrastructure development in parts of the Northwest Territories that are not on the mainstream highway system or as part of the mainstream link of the communications infrastructure. So this I think is going to help out people in the northernmost part of the Northwest Territories in terms of lessening the cost of living and for those reasons I support that.

Yet, at the same time, I think my colleagues on this side of this House have expressed some of their concerns in terms of the financial details lacking on how it is on the business case analysis in terms of the amount of revenue that they’re going to bring into this project in terms of the management and the expenditures are going to ensure that it’s done efficiently at the same time within a set budget. So I think those concerns were expressed by my colleagues. For the most part I think this project

should be realized, but we can’t lose sight of the needs of the constituents that I represent. I know this project should not compromise the needs of my constituents of the Hay River Reserve, Enterprise, Fort Providence and Kakisa. I think their needs are equally as real as the needs of the people in the northernmost part of the Northwest Territories. But for the most part I support this initiative.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the Member’s support. Just to reassure the Member, speaking to the borrowing limit and any additional strategic infrastructure investments, we will be coming back to this House with borrowing limit information in the plan. Clearly we have an obligation as government to make sure that whatever strategic investments are made are spread across the North and that this hopeful tide of good fortune will raise all boats, not just in one particular area. That’s a commitment of the government. Once again, I will ask the Minister of Transportation if he wishes to respond further.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the Member’s comments in regard to the funding request, the $2.5 million. I just want to restate something I believe my colleague Minister Miltenberger stated earlier. The Tuktoyaktuk to Inuvik highway is the first section of the Mackenzie Valley Highway and we need to start somewhere. If we want to realize the dream, a highway in the Mackenzie Valley, this is the beginning of that. So, again, I just wanted to put that out there. We need to start somewhere and this is where we’re going to start. I appreciate the Member’s support. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Mr. Nadli. We’ll move on to Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve listened with interest to all of these comments. I guess they call it a debate for a reason. I don’t know if this is a debate or not, but I’ll tell you this is a debatable investment, that’s for sure.

I feel conflicted. There are so many unknowns, so many needs, so little resources and we’re kind of jumping off the bridge here blind and hoping we’re going to find a parachute on the way down I think. I guess that’s the nature of taking risks. We take a leap of faith and you hope for the best.

But some of the concerns, Mr. Chairman, if I can summarize them, and I want to say as a returning Member there is an element of déjà vu on the Deh Cho Bridge on this because it was just a couple of million and a couple more million and a couple

more million and pretty soon we were at $9 million and do we keep going or do we shut it down? Well, ultimately that decision was taken away from us and because we’d done the work, we were committed financially, psychologically, emotionally. People talk about infrastructure; it’s hard not to be supportive. Nation building, territory building, you hear these phrases, but I guess the issue is there’s a lot of things that we’d like in all of our regions, but we’ve got to pick and choose what the projects are that will go ahead.

The issue with this specific project that I have a concern with is the timing. We’re being asked for a supplementary appropriation so that this work can all be done in the next six weeks. I find it hard to believe that this money can be spent, expended and the work completed in the next six weeks.

On the flipside of that, the region is economically slow and this would provide activity. So every argument has a counter to it. So we spend another $2.5 million, Ottawa is talking about austerity measures, they’re talking about reductions all over the place and yet we hear from our representatives that go down to Ottawa, that Ottawa is committed to this project, that this is a pet project of the Prime Minister, that Minister Flaherty has made the commitment. We haven’t seen it on paper, but we understand that’s the case. Then it begs the question, well, why is our little government being asked to put another $2.5 million on the table, and then another $2.5 million on the geotechnical, on the due diligence, when the federal government has so many more resources. If this is really their idea, it’s not their idea, but I mean if there’s really all this support there for it.

So I think that there are pros and cons at every turn on this thing. One of the concerns I think is some of the foundational work, the cost-benefit analysis, the technology. We hear about the issues with Highway No. 7, with the Dempster Highway, with the melting of permafrost, with the enormous costs of maintaining and in some cases kind of restructuring the transportation infrastructure we already have that’s being affected by wear and tear and changing ground conditions.

So we just need to go into this with our eyes wide open here, folks. There are a lot of unanswered questions. The cost-benefit analysis for this piece of work, there’s the science. How are we going to build this road so that we’re not ending up with something like even we had between the Rae turnoff and Yellowknife here? My goodness, that’s a new highway, if you can call it a highway. It’s very sad driving on that road. It seems like we practically started repairing it the day we finished building it. If you think it’s a problem here building on rock and the Canadian Shield, wait until you get up there. Have we assessed what the ongoing maintenance cost is? We’re going to raise the expectation in the

Beaufort-Delta and in Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk that these folks are going to have a serviceable road to travel back and forth on. We could have a pile of mush when we’re done. It’s a global changing in the weather. But, again, I guess that’s all part of the risk factors.

So there are good things to be said. There are questions to be answered. So we’re called upon to make a decision. I hope that the federal government stays true to their commitment that after we’ve financially committed to this project and continuing with this due diligence and putting this money out front, I certainly hope that the federal government doesn’t get any cold feet on this. I hope they stay with us on this.

I like the fact that it is a cost-shared project and that we’re not doing it on our own. There are some people who would say that this type of infrastructure is totally a federal responsibility, but if it favourably impacts our borrowing limit then some would say development is a good thing, we need more money for development, we need this kind of activity in all regions of the Northwest Territories to spur on economic development.

There are others on the converse that would say this government shouldn’t be getting into any more debt than the $500 million limit that we have right now. There are people who say we shouldn’t be mortgaging the future. That’s another argument you hear out there. I’m just trying to articulate some of the concerns.

In a perfect world if the road gets built and it is the beginning of the Mackenzie Valley Highway and we can afford to maintain it going forward… Every time we make a commitment like this, though, we also have to remember that it’s not just a one-time thing. It is the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of a piece of infrastructure like this. We’re not going to abandon it after we start it. It is the ongoing cost which we don’t really know much about at this point. Whatever we spend on this we won’t spend on something else and there are a lot of priorities out there in our communities on a much smaller scale, many of them, than this particular one.

However, on Friday afternoon when we met in committee I said I would support the $2.5 million and I will continue to support the $2.5 million today when we vote on this. It sort of sounds from what I’ve said leading up to this that I’m doing so with some trepidation about what the future of this project is. I do support development outside of the capital. We talked about the $2.3 million for Betty House and the $40 million office building going uptown. Where does it end in terms of the concentration of capital in Yellowknife here? This is an example of something outside of Yellowknife and I hope that the same consideration will be extended to other regions as we go forward and look for projects that we can support.

I will say today and put on the record we need something in the South Slave. We’ve got prospects, we’ve got promise of things that could create jobs and create economy for our people, but we need a fair and equitable distribution of the resources.

I’ve heard other people say road? What’s a road? I mean, we’re pretty fortunate in the South Slave, too, that we are all connected by roads. We do have a pretty good road infrastructure there and that’s something other parts of the Territories only dream of. But it will come and this will be one step towards it.

I will support the expenditures contained in the supplementary appropriation here for infrastructure, but a lot of it requires a leap of faith.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, I appreciate the Member’s support. If I could make an observation that I think all of us that have been here for at least the last Assembly and prior, but definitely the last Assembly, would consider ourselves somewhat battle hardened when it comes to the road followed for a major project. The ups and downs of things like the Deh Cho Bridge. Now we sit here, I would like to say we are not sadder but we are wiser. We know we have to invest this money up front to answer the very legitimate questions the Member has raised before we make any ongoing long-term commitment. I think that’s the thing that is different here. We are all going to be in the same room when that information is put on the table and we’ll be able to make an informed decision. At that point there will be some risk involved, but hopefully we will have enough information that we can make that determination.

If I can just quickly comment about the South Slave, I assure the Member’s concern. There are issues tied to energy and power that we have to sort out with potential mining ventures like Avalon and Tamerlane. We’re intent on trying to negotiate and come to some agreement that will allow those projects to have a chance. There are opportunities coming, but I appreciate the Member’s support.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. I believe Mr. Ramsay wants to comment as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on the Finance Minister’s comments and to Mrs. Groenewegen, I do appreciate her support. Looking at, I know some Members like to draw a comparison to the Deh Cho Bridge and I think the comparison is not something we can draw. I don’t think there are a lot of comparisons between the Deh Cho Bridge and the Tuk-Inuvik highway. On the Deh Cho Bridge it was always the federal government was going to come

to the table and that was the premise for the Deh Cho Bridge all along. At the end of the day the federal government didn’t come to the table. In the Tuk-Inuvik highway we have the best possible partner we could get as a government. We have the federal government committing $150 million and they want to be our partner in building this vital piece of infrastructure in our territory. Like I said, we couldn’t ask for a better partner.

If you look at the infrastructure and the level of investment in this territory in the past five years through programs like Building Canada and CSIF, it was an unprecedented amount of federal dollars that flowed into this territory to build vital infrastructure across the territory. What better partner to have on a project than the federal government? We’re fortunate enough, I believe, to have that commitment by the federal government of $150 million to pursue the Tuk-Inuvik highway. I think there’s little comparison that can be drawn with the Deh Cho Bridge and I just wanted to put that out there.

On the other issues that Mrs. Groenewegen had on maintenance, we’ve done some early estimates and it was brought up at committee as well. It’s approximately $2 million a year. It’s based on maintenance costs on the Dempster Highway on a comparable distance of highway. Again, these things have to be vetted and they’ll be vetted through that geotechnical and environmental work that needs to be done.

I again think it’s early days but there’s little comparison that can be made to the Deh Cho Bridge aside from the magnitude of the investment in infrastructure in this territory. That’s the only comparison that you can make.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Last on my list for general comments I have Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to confirm that we are still on general comments.

That’s correct, Mr. Bromley. Seeing that there are no other general comments, does committee agree to go to detail?

I’d like the Members to turn to page 5 of the supplementary appropriation infrastructure handout. Supplementary Appropriation (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2011-2012, Department of Public Works and Services, operations expenditures, asset management, not previously authorized, $400,000.

Department total, not previously authorized, $400,000.