Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to start my conversation possibly where I left off earlier today in my Member’s statement. Really, when it was brought forward the first time to the public’s light, was the $299 million cost estimate that was provided to the federal government from this department. Now, in reading the opening comments of the Minister, I was struck back that this number is now being carried forward as a number for negotiations. We’ve heard earlier that the Minister is not closing or doing any deals. Anything that we were talking outside of this $299 million is deemed hypothetical, which I do have a concern with that comment.
I guess the roundabout is the fact that this is going to be, by and large, probably the second or third largest expenditure on our public purse, one in which, I think, the public needs to have an active voice, not only at the end stage of negotiations but during the stage of negotiations. I think it’s very clear to the public that we are venturing down a pathway to which the public has had very little information. The Members here have had, and I do appreciate the fact the Minister has been upfront and has brought some information, and I say some, not all information. But the general public, to this day, is still seeking that information.
Given the fact that this is an open process, this budget process is open, I find it fairly interesting that the Minister would actually include this information in his opening address, yet has not provided any details or level of detail to which I believe that the public is deserving of. For that, I would ask, in the Minister’s comments, to include why. Why are we not sharing this information? Why are we not bringing the public into the light? Why are we not bringing the public up to speed in terms of, as we indicated earlier, the royalties for the granular component? What about the 15 percent of the road that is not accommodated within the cost estimate? What if this 15 percent will encompass barriers or extremely high levels of cost within the
completion of the road? We don’t know that, and I don’t think any of the Members here know that as well.
Also, the issue of the risk matrix, and as a component of a matter of point, this was deemed by the Auditor General of Canada during her deliberations on the Deh Cho Bridge as being a very weak project and a very weak process of this government. Our job as Members is to clearly put a lens on making improvements, nothing more. We want to see this project go forward as any other project in the Northwest Territories. We’re just accountable for the public purse, and I think the questions that we’re asking are very fair and reasonable in design. I think we need to also get a response back from the Minister that is equally fair and reasonable. Some of the responses that were received are less than I consider appropriate and are obviously causing frustrations amongst the Members here.
I do applaud the general aspect of the Department of Transportation and their main estimates. We are seeing that they are working within their means, but those means also include the fact that we have many other roads of infrastructure that are going to have to be dealt with in the years to come, and really, there’s a lot of concern out there. I know this is not a capital budget; this is an operations budget. I’ll leave it at that. I will have questions for detail as we go from page to page, but I really strongly encourage the Minister to not heed to the political Mackenzie two-step that goes with a project of this magnitude and to cooperate fully with the Members, cooperate fully with the public, and let’s just share the information. That’s all we’re asking. Share what we’ve got today. Let’s not wait to hear back from the feds. Let’s not wait until we’ve got to a make a five-minute decision on a $300 million project. Let the public be aware. That’s all I’m asking. Thank you.