Department total, Public Works and Services, capital investment expenditures, not previously authorized, negative $400,000.

Supplementary Appropriation (Infrastructure Expenditures) No. 3, 2011-2012, Department of Transportation, capital investment expenditures, airports, not previously authorized, $427,000.

Highways, not previously authorized, $2.5 million. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Probably all of the points that I’m about to mention have been expressed already, but I feel that I need to get on the record where I’m coming from with regard to this project. I expressed in my general comments that I have some concerns. I want to say at the outset I am supportive of this project. I think it is a project that is going to be, as has been mentioned, nation building, territory building, it is a good project. I have huge problems with the process and I have huge problems with the lack of concrete information that we have at our disposal in order to approve this expenditure and to basically the cost of the project as we go forward.

At the outset, Mrs. Groenewegen says that there are some people that feel this whole road is a federal responsibility. I’m one of them. I believe that it is the federal government’s responsibility to build new roads and it is then the territorial and provincial responsibility to maintain that road. I haven’t seen in my time here anything, I don’t think, if so, very little if anything, from the federal government that will support new road building in our territory. I really believe that it is the federal responsibility to do that.

In regard to the whole project, I am really, really nervous that we have no project costs. We are being asked to approve a specific amount of money here. We’re going to be asked to approve another $2.5 million, so we’re told, in next year’s capital budget. We’ve already approved that budget but we’ve been advised that they’re going to come back and ask for another $2.5 million to finish this geotechnical work in 2012-2013. So we’re already at $6 million by the time we get to the supp for 2012-2013. We’re already at $6 million for this project, but we don’t know what the end cost is. That really concerns me. Do we have any idea, any

finite idea of the cost of the project? I don’t think so. I’ve heard the feds are going to give us $150 million. Initially we thought it was going to be $225 million then it went up to maybe $230 million, well then $260 million, maybe $283 million, and now I’m hearing a number of $300 million. If that’s the case and if the federal government says, well, we’re only going to give you $150 million, this government, this territory, our residents are now looking at paying $150 million for the Tuk-Inuvik Highway. Where’s the 75/25 split in that? My math doesn’t work that way. If that’s the case and the feds pull out at $150 million and the project costs us $300 million, that’s 50/50. I can’t get any guarantee; I can’t get any assurance from either Minister that tells me that we’re going to be able to have a 75/25 split. The fact that we don’t know the cost of the project is really disturbing to me.

The other thing in terms of the project in general is that we don’t know what kind of a project it’s going to be. Part of this money that we’re approving is going to go to determine whether or not it should be a P3. It might be a P3, we might finance it ourselves. There are a number of options out there. I haven’t been given any assurance as to what kind of method we’re going to use to finance this project.

Mrs. Groenewegen, I think, mentioned that it feels like a bridge project and I have to tell you, I’ve only had one term here but I was unfortunately intimately involved with the bridge project and the cost overruns and just with all the difficult decisions we had to make. I feel very much in the same position. The Minister suggested we should be hardened after the bridge experience. I have to say that I may be hardened but I’m also extremely gun shy. This project does not feel good. It doesn’t feel comfortable.

There are a couple of statements in our briefings and also today from the Minister that we’ve got to hit some timelines. We have to do this and we have to do that. We’re being pressured on a number of fronts, one in terms of time, apparently, and one in terms of the federal government. I don’t think we need to be pressured and I don’t think we should accept that pressure, because it’s rushing our decision on this project.

Somebody talked about dancing to the tune of the Prime Minister and I thought that was a pretty apt quote. I think that was Mr. Yakeleya and I have to agree with him. I think we are dancing to somebody else’s tune and I think it’s important that we dance to our own tune. There doesn’t seem to be a willingness, I guess, on the part of the government to exert our autonomy, to make a statement that no, this is not something we want to go to unless we really do want to go there. I feel like we’re not really making a valid decision.

I have a great deal of concern with the timing of this request. I have expressed before, I don’t

understand why we as Members were not advised, we had no inkling of a $2.5 million request coming forward in this session. We approved a $1 million expense for the capital budget for 2012-13, and at that time there was, to my mind, no indication that we were going to be asked for more money. I didn’t get a valid explanation or I didn’t get a lengthy explanation that this project is in the works. This project is ramping up. We’re going to be having to make some decisions in the near future. We’re probably going to come back and ask you for some money and it will probably be a couple of million dollars. I don’t remember hearing that at all. I think if I had been aware of that in the fall and in December when we discussed the capital budget, I’d have a much different view of this request at this point right now.

Economic development has been mentioned a number of times and I appreciate that we are assisting a region that is struggling, that has no economic development, that needs the economic development, but it’s not the only region in our territory. I feel really strongly that we definitely need to assist this region but we don’t need to do it in a hurry. If the reason for doing this project and doing it in a such a hurry is economic development, well, then from my region, where’s a road through the Slave Geologic Province? Mining is struggling in our territory. It’s struggling in my community. A road through the Slave Geologic would have a huge impact on mining and exploration in the NWT, but that doesn’t seem to be there.

A couple of other things. There’s a lack of a risk assessment. That’s been mentioned and that is a concern for me. There’s the ongoing maintenance once the construction is done. There doesn’t seem to be information on what that’s going to cost us. This is building a road in basically new territory. There are not a lot of roads built in this kind of an environment throughout the world. We really don’t know what maintenance is going to cost us. There hasn’t been an adequate cost-benefit analysis, at least not a recent one. The one that we have been given to have a look at is a couple of years old. Those things absolutely concern me.

I think – and it’s been mentioned already, but I agree with it – that this project is going to take away from other projects that we may want, other elements of our budget, and it’s important for me to recognize that this expense, I think, is going to force us to leave some other things undone.

I see my time is up. I just want to see if I can get my last shot in here. I think I’m done. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I have more, I’ll come back on the list. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. We’re going to go to Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s gratifying to know that the

Member supports the project; otherwise she could have some really tough questions. We’re caught on the horns of a dilemma here. The Member has rattled off a whole list of questions that have to be answered. We’re saying we need the money to answer those questions so we can make an informed decision. It is unfair, it would seem to me, to dam the project, but let’s not put the information on the table so that we can make the decision to see if, in fact, it is a viable project, we can afford it and it fits into all our other strategic goals.

Mr. Chair, I would hope the Member would give us that grace and that latitude to be able to answer the very legitimate questions that she’s raised. I will ask the Minister of Transportation if he has anything further to add in terms of the specifics. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m happy the Member supports the project. But listening to the questions she had, I believe I answered a number of them in the hours I spent with committee last week. I think I’ve mentioned the fact that maintenance on that 135 kilometres between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk, the estimate that we put out there is about $2 million a year. That was mentioned at committee. It was mentioned earlier today, and I’ll put that out there again for the Member.

She has, I guess, cast some negative aspersions about a project that we haven’t even gotten off the ground yet. All we’re asking for is the $2.5 million to do our due diligence, to do the work that’s going to answer the questions that she has today and she had last week at committee. We’re not asking Members to approve a $250 million project. That’s not the exercise we’re having here today. The exercise we’re having here today is to approve $2.5 million so that we can get the work done that’s going to answer the questions.

Rest assured, we will come back to Members with those answers. We will come back. Before we take any step forward, we’re going to come back to this House and we’re going to have that discussion with Members so that everybody is on the same page, so that we can support the effort to build the highway between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Moving on with the detail here, we have Mr. Bromley.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that Mr. Minister Abernethy be allowed to make a motion.

Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding Rule 6(1), I move a motion that Committee of the Whole continues sitting beyond the hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing and concluding consideration of Tabled Document 2-17(2), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2011-2012. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

---Carried

We will continue with general comments. Sorry; details. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened to the concerns by Mr. Bromley. It is very similar to the concerns of his colleague Ms. Bisaro. The one thing that strikes me is that if we were sitting in Yellowknife and it had no road south and we were debating the merits and benefit of a road connection, we would be having an entirely different debate or the debate would be ones where we would be playing different roles. So I think we have to keep in mind that there are all of these benefits that are going to come when you build roads. Diefenbaker had it right on the money: roads to resources to open up country. We have to make the first step. We will come back with the information. We will address the questions so that

we can make an informed decision. We have committed to do that. It is critical that we, as a Legislature, allow this project to have the latitude to be able to do the work to find out if it proceeds at all. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley, do you have anything to conclude?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that in the scenario the Minister paints, if Yellowknife did not have a road, undoubtedly this road would not be happening in that scenario and under these conditions, and I agree with that. That is the oversight and accountability that we are trying to bring from this side of the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to respond to Mr. Bromley’s comments. Again, I respect Mr. Bromley’s position. I don’t agree with everything and his arguments on why he should not support the $2.5 million, but the way I look at it, and again people are trying to make parallels with the Deh Cho Bridge and it’s just not an accurate depiction of this project because we have a partner that’s putting in $150 million into this project and that’s the federal government. We didn’t have that with the Deh Cho Bridge project.

Again, I think this project is developing our territory from a number of perspectives. The federal government being our partner, they’re interested in sovereignty. Arctic sovereignty has been a big issue. That’s at the forefront of the decision to support the construction of the highway, social development of the region and also economic development. Those real jobs that Mr. Bromley talks about, they are going to be born out of resource extraction of some type. In the Beaufort-Delta, oil and gas development, both onshore and offshore, that’s where the real jobs are and that’s where the real development in that region of our territory is going to take place and that’s how it’s going to happen. This road is just a part. It will make up the foundation of the potential economic prosperity of the Beaufort-Delta.

So, again, I respect Mr. Bromley’s thoughts, but I tend to disagree with him. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Continuing with detail. We have Ms. Bisaro.

We’ve still got time?