Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister responsible for Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think our first priority as a government and Legislature is in fact to put all our efforts into making sure that the bridge gets concluded, that it gets opened and operating and generating the revenue that has been budgeted for and will provide that service to Northerners as well as help lighten our fiscal burden.

The questions the Member has raised have been discussed. Has there been a formal debriefing? Has there been a formal forensic review and post-mortem? No, there hasn’t at this point. In due course when the project is, in fact, concluded and up and running, there will be that opportunity to look as we go forward on learning from this process. Thank you.

I have to say I’m kind of disappointed by that last answer by the Finance Minister, because, quite frankly, the lenders cutting off funding to the territorial government through the Deh Cho Bridge have nothing to do with the ongoing process. That process has been done. That bridge has been burnt. It’s over. So now is our chance to look at the situation.

There must have been significant correspondence from the lender. I’m asking the Finance Minister would he be willing to provide the correspondence

between the Department of Finance and the lenders to Members of this side of the House as well as committee members so we can look at some of the reasons why they chose to cut off the financial accounts to the GNWT in early 2010.

What I will commit to is when the project is completed, we will do a review, a post-mortem to make sure that we learn the lessons necessary on what worked well, what didn’t work as well, how we structured ourselves, and the very many other issues that may flow out of that. I know the Member has indicated a very specific interest, but by just providing single pieces of correspondence or a sheaf of correspondence on a very, very complex process without a broad context and having all the pieces together would be counterproductive, in my mind, and we’re not in the position to do that until the project is done and we do that post-mortem. Thank you.

I’ve heard several indications that there was an attempt to undermine the GNWT’s position by calling and harassing the lenders about the GNWT being incompetent and unable to manage this type of loan. I’ve heard this from various sources that expressed this quite adamantly. I would think the Finance Minister would be quite concerned and shocked by that suggestion.

The fact is we can’t have the reputation of the GNWT put at risk. I ask the Minister, once again, if this type of concern is out there, what would stop him from wanting to get to the bottom of why the lenders pulled the carpet out from the GNWT, put such financial risk on our government directly and caused us to have increases, major increases to the Deh Cho Bridge project, and now sitting here and waiting and saying, well, when it’s done. We should be doing this now.

In fact, I was, if my memory serves me correctly, the Minister of Finance at the time as we dealt with the very many bumps in the road that were there with the Deh Cho Bridge. We’ve managed our way through that, I think, in a very constructive way. The project is nearing completion.

The Member has indicated that he has had indications and he has had some sources tell him things. I don’t know who those people are. I can tell him and can tell you in this House and the people of the Northwest Territories, we have a project that is nearing completion, that once it is built everyone will stand up and say that’s a very good project.

This is long overdue and we would never want to go back to ferries and ice roads. We will do the post-mortem. We will share that and we will do that in due course in the fullness of time.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The fullness of time is always the worst response from this Minister, because it could be a lifetime. It is not an answer, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, this Minister should be concerned that this project financing, that portfolio, that file got pulled out and embarrassed on his shoulders while this happened. And he should have fought like heck to make sure it didn’t, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is, this should be investigated. I’m not calling for a royal commission on this particular issue, I’m talking about will he start a process getting this kicked off, because this could take several years, and to wait for the fullness of the project to come to fruition could be years away. If they want to defend doing nothing, they’re accepting and supporting nothing. The question really comes back to let’s get to action. Why defend doing nothing when we could be doing something?

A point of fact, the Member has no idea how I feel and he has no idea how hard I fought or not fought on this issue.

I think the proof is in the pudding. We have a project that is nearing completion. There have been challenges, without a doubt, and they’ve been reported and debated and discussed in this House and in the press.

Our first priority and our first full attention is to get the project done and completed, and open to traffic and generating revenue. After that, we have committed to doing a full post-mortem and we will make sure that that information is shared. It has nothing to do with our not caring or not being concerned.

We’ve been on this, like I said, I was the Finance Minister in the last government, and this issue has consumed a lot of time, as everyone well knows. Our first job is to complete that project and then we will honour the commitment for the post-mortem.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Item 10, written questions. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation.

1. Would the Minister please provide a list of the

communities that were consulted in the shelter policy review?

2. Would the Minister please indicate which

community groups were consulted during the review?

3. Would the Minister please confirm the number

of NWT seniors who were consulted during the review?

4. Would the Minister please provide an outline of

the consultation process for the shelter policy review?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Item 11, returns to written questions. Item 12, replies to opening address. Item 13, replies to budget address. Item 14, petitions. Item 15, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 16, tabling of documents. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Item 17, notices of motion. Item 18, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 19, motions. Item 20, first reading of bills. Item 21, second reading of bills. Item 22, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, with Mrs. Groenewegen in the chair.

I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. The only item we have before Committee of the Whole today is Tabled Document 3-17(3), NWT Main Estimates 2012-2013. I would like to ask what is the wish of the committee. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Your committee would like to do some opening comments.

Thank you. We will proceed with that after a brief recess. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

I’ll call committee back to order. We have agreed to consider Tabled Document 3-17(3), NWT Main Estimates 2012-2013. We have also agreed to begin with general comments. Although the Minister will not be bringing witnesses in at this moment,

when they do arrive, does committee agree that the Minister could have witnesses and that the Sergeant-at-Arms could escort them into the Chamber when they arrive? Agreed?

Thank you. At that time we’ll ask the Minister to introduce his witnesses for the record. But in the interest of time, we will get underway. There will be 10 minutes allowed per time that Members speak and you can always go back if you want to. Just in terms of format, as well, does committee agree that we will make our general comments and allow the Minister to respond to general comments just once at the end of your general comments? Agreed?

Okay, thank you. General comments. Okay, seeing no general comments...

---Laughter

Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I offer some general comments on the main estimates before the House for this week and this budget session. I think I’ve made the point the other day about missing two words, which are “Highway No. 7” and “expenditures” for it, new money for this coming fiscal year.

It saddens me that there are zero dollars allocated for capital expenditures for this year. I know there are some capital carry-overs from last year’s projects, and earlier in the year I made strenuous efforts to get the Minister to commit to expend those funds. Before the rainy season, late August/September, hopefully he will follow through on those commitments and get those projects completed that are outstanding from last year with regard to Highway No. 7 and around the Fort Simpson area. I still continue to try to get Highway No. 7 as a priority of our government. Like I mentioned, there is no mention anywhere in the Commissioner’s opening address or the Finance Minister’s budget remarks as well.

As we move along I know that they had mentioned that I think in August/September we will be doing our budget consultations and it will be addressed. However, I still feel that there is a need to expend some money this summer. In fact, the constituents are looking forward to any improvements to highway infrastructure in that area.

I know the government is saying that we are under fiscal restraint and passive restraint, et cetera. However, we have a little bit of a surplus and as well when it comes to finding additional money, we have no problem creating a supp for it. That’s something I would like to see if there is a special project or some way they can continue the work

around Fort Liard and Highway No. 7 and that they do find some money to undertake those investments, and I will continue to stress that.

As well, earlier today in my Member’s statement I alluded to the fact that the tourism budget, the Minister indicated that it was $10.4 million. However, there is a reduction. The budget last year was $10.7 million, so there’s a $300,000 reduction to the tourism budget. It impacts the way that people do business and the tourism sector, just that little bit of money. I traveled quite extensively with Mr. Ted Grant, who is a strong advocate of tourism and the tourism industry in the North. He’s almost single-handedly sold the beauty of the Nahanni National Park to the world. In fact, it’s in a lot of our national marketing programs. You see pictures of Little Doctor Lake, the Ram Plateau and a lot of advertising campaigns. As for our own NWT marketing campaign, I know we have the NWT Tourism Strategy document, but every little reduction impacts how we provide those services. I would certainly like to see something special done this year and we don’t have to be faced with those reductions.

As well as with my travels with Rendezvous Canada and meeting with the NWT Tourism chair and executive director, one of the points that I have been really clarifying in my Member’s statements and questions to the Minister was that the department is holding back $400,000, for unknown reasons. That gives me the question: Is the government using fiscal restraint to hold back the $400,000 and say that to save some money? I would like to see them release it. Previous years they’ve been operating on the $1.6 million and doing quite an effective job, but a $400,000 holdback I guess on this issue really impacts their operations. So in total, if you take that perspective from their perspective, they’re actually facing in this coming year a $700,000 shortage, and that’s huge, especially for tourism.

In the past nine years we’ve striven and we’ve worked really hard to double that budget. When I first became an MLA in 2003, it was almost $900,000 and now we’re well over $2 million. But to cut it back like this and especially when all other jurisdictions are maintaining what they spend to market their different provinces or their territories, like the Yukon and Nunavut. Nunavut saw fit to do it. Even though they’re facing severe budget restrictions, it still saw fit to increase their tourism budget, Madam Chair. We’re actually doing a reduction in tourism and I still don’t know how that happens. Particularly our Minister was the strongest advocate of tourism for eight years and now he becomes Minister and he cuts the tourism budget he supposedly so strongly advocated for. It’s kind of puzzling that that’s the way that it happened. In fact, the budget address was kind of private, we’re not cutting programs and services, yet when it

comes to tourism there’s a $300,000 reduction over last year and it certainly does impact programs and services, and how we spend it will impact that.

I’ve always made the case that I’ve always linked Highway No. 7 and tourism as well. The more that we improve Highway No. 7, the more tourists and tourism products we can sell in the Nahendeh riding. Well, in fact, once we talk about the Deh Cho Trail concept, that goes right around the Providence junction and over to Hay River and Enterprise and exposing all of that to potential tourism and tourism marketing. It does wonders for our micro industry of Aboriginal crafts and sales.

So those are the two concerns that I have that really stick out in the budget, or don’t stick out in the budget as it were in the case of Highway No. 7. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister Miltenberger, before you make your response, would you please introduce your witness for the record. Mr. Miltenberger.