Okay, committee, would the Minister have any opening comments?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m here to present Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2013-2014.

This document provides for an increase of $60 million for capital investment expenditures in the 2013-2014 fiscal year. Supplementary funding is for the Department of Transportation for the construction of the Inuvik-Tuktoyaktuk Highway Project, a cost-shared project with the federal government.

I’m prepared to review the details of the supplementary estimates document. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Miltenberger, do you have witnesses you’d like to bring into the Chamber?

No, they’re already here.

They’re already here. Thank you. Minister Miltenberger, again, for the record, if you could introduce your witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mike Aumond, deputy minister of Finance; Mr. Russ Neudorf, deputy minister Department of Transportation; and Mr. Sandy Kalgutkar, deputy secretary to the Financial Management Board. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. General comments. Thank you, committee. We’re hearing general detail. Committee, I’m going to ask you to turn to page 5 of your supplementary, 2013-2014, Supplementary Appropriation, No. 1, (Infrastructure Expenditures). Transportation, capital investment expenditures, highways, not previously authorized, $60 million,

total department, not previously authorized, $60 million. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Am I to understand that $40,000 of this will be federal dollars provided at some point during the fiscal year? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the number is $40 million over the life of the project.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Would Mr. Neudorf care to clarify? Minister Miltenberger.

So out of the $60 million, $40 million will be coming from the federal government. Okay, got it right. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you. I believe my colleagues corrected me there. It was $40 million. So that will be happening this fiscal year, we will get a transfer of $40 million from the federal government for this cost. Is that correct? Thank you.

Thank you. What the process will be is the political commitment has been made for the $200 million. Mr. Neudorf and his officials will be working with his counterparts in the federal government to work out the details and the funding agreement that will allow that money to flow, and we anticipate in the next two months that would be concluded and the money would start to flow into the project. Thank you.

Thanks for that information. So we will, for sure, have that money for consideration during our fall capital budget, that $40 million for other expenditures. Just looking for confirmation again. Thank you.

Yes.

Committee, again, page 5, 2013-2014, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did promise I had a few questions on this particular section and I would save my questions to the $60 million page. One of the issues I raised last week, and I think you even highlighted it in a comment earlier, was about publicizing a risk matrix on the Inuvik-Tuk highway, and I appreciate the fact that it’s now shown up on our desk here, but one of the issues I was trying to get at and get a response from the Minister was that this would be in hand and publicized before we’d be making a decision. This information, in a large sense, has shown up in the middle of the discussion and has stopped us,

quite frankly it’s stopped us from getting any sort of insight, and certainly expertise outside this building, independent views of the people in the construction industry, because this was always stamped with the big word confidential on it. So I’m curious, from the Minister’s point of view, and certainly from the department’s point of view, of how this is now benefitted me in making a decision on this project? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The information, albeit confidential, provided back in December. It was requested today when we met with committee, that the request was for a plain language summary, which we worked hard to get on the table into committee and which we will table tomorrow. There has been, well, it’s not going to benefit the general public because the discussion will help edify them, but it won’t be part of the prior discussion to today’s vote on this supp. It does provide and has provided the Members with all the information we had available on an ongoing basis as it developed, and as it became available it was shared. Thank you.

Thanks. Again, speaking about the process here – and that’s what I’ve been concerned about all along – yes, I asked for a plain language document in the House repeatedly last week to the Minister. Of course, he avoided answering the question the best he could, but what the public saw and what they responded to me was the fact that we needed a plain language document out there in the public, no matter how funny it seems to the Minister, so we can get these types of input and value on these projects, because some of the issues, I have to tell you, I’m not fully experienced in these areas. So I would have liked to have seen inside, but we get this after the fact. So this document has slithered onto my table while we do this and, quite frankly, I’m disappointed by how late it is. I asked for this last week before we’d make this. So we get this after the fact. This is like rear-view consultation. How many times do we hear about, well, you didn’t consult with us? Now we get a chance that we get the consultation document after the fact, and it’s quite offensive, to be honest.

If you compare the two documents, which we haven’t been given a chance to compare, you’ll notice the new document on the risk matrix has 42 items as a problem, but the document we were even handed at lunchtime, if I may go so far as saying, has 41 items. So I haven’t been able to compare the two documents to find out what’s been added or what’s been changed or what’s missing.

The department knew that this question was coming a week ago. What stopped them from providing this particular information in advance so we could table this in a proper way? They knew this

decision was coming on the highway and the fact is the public should not make a mistake. This is not against the highway. This is against the process and against the fact that this is an issue with the process. Thank you.

Thank you. We should be clear that this risk matrix is an evolving living document that, as we conclude all the work and do all the geotechnical, it will be amended. There was work being done on the plain language summary. The government, the department was not deaf to the entreaties of the Member, so we now have it before us in addition to the document that was given in December.

The way we do business for the most part in this Assembly, that I recollect, with committee is we share during the budget process and planning process all sorts of information because we’re a consensus government. We do a full disclosure. It’s not the practice to necessarily do everything through the public fishbowl type of process where every document that we talk about in committee and with committee by the department, in this department or any others, is automatically put on the table and put on some type of public website as we try to sort through things because it would be very difficult to follow.

When we’re ready and our thinking is clear on things, then we’re in a position to lay that information before the public. In the meantime, we do need the opportunity to work with committee to work through a lot of these issues.

The Minister says how we don’t do this. The fact is we don’t approve $300 million projects. Quite frankly, once we’ve approved the $60 million portion, I consider the road on its way. You would think that the concerns of Members would have been treated with more respect on this process. The fact that it’s almost as if the information’s been denied Members for their ability to go out and do their work and due diligence on this. The fact is, middle of December to beginning of March, if nothing’s changed on the original risk matrix, it’s odd. Maybe the Minister can help explain why it changed in the last two hours of today as opposed to just over two months nothing’s changed.