Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the first time I’ve spoken to this particular issue. I was going to parcel my comments on the $5 million and keep them separate from the $60 million portion, which is on the next supplementary appropriation. I can appreciate the fact that Members had to speak to both at the same time.

I’m certainly in a peculiar position when I think of this project, because, to be frank, I feel that not any one person, I should say it that way, but I feel, to some degree, like we’ve been painted into a corner that if we question the project, that we’ve been seen as questioning the region, and I have to admit

there’s this feeling that when we’ve asked questions, people are characterizing as if we don’t support the region at all. I wish that wasn’t the case, but that has been an undertow to this problem right now. I mean, a lot of this is called due diligence by us. The public would have an expectation that we would ask lots of questions to make sure that the project could be defended, and that’s the problem. This project has become emotional as opposed to, sort of, a technical discussion, and so when we ask questions about where are we going to make up the money, inevitably someone will say under their breath, well, you just don’t like the people of Inuvik and Tuk. That’s why. And that’s not the case. That has never been the case, at least from my position, and I’ve never thought of it that way.

I can still remember being introduced to the project by Calvin Pokiak, when Calvin first got elected in 2003. We were part of that class of 2003. We sat down with Mervin and he laid out this scribbly old piece of paper that you could hold up in the air and you could almost see through the thing. That map had travelled so many times and so many years about the initial 140 kilometre highway and the challenges thereof. Mervin explained the narrative, how that originally came across, and we talked about it at the time. Then I remember the asks about supporting the initial phase of let’s build to 177, to that gravel source, and that will help. Once we kick it off, we’ll start kicking off the longer length of the project, and how the bigger project will grow as time presents itself.

I mean, the fact is, it should be no surprise to anyone here, I mean, I’ve said it repeatedly that I support nation building, and certainly that’s part of the reason why I stood, in a comparative sense, to why I got behind the Deh Cho Bridge. I always believed it was so nation building. And I say likewise, it’s because I do believe in the principles of this highway. I’ve never swayed from that thought, because I think that it’s important. I’ve never believed that public infrastructure comes cheap. I’ve always believed it’s always fraught with headaches, whether it’s public headaches, financial headaches, criticism, critiquing, you know, you name it, throw it in there. But it’s the responsibility of our elected politicians to question these things and make sure that they stand the test of questions. It’s frustrating because, again, it’s almost as if it’s characterized us when we’re questioning these types of things. Then we have to question them maybe in a similar manner of the Deh Cho Bridge how we’re coming after the fact and asking why did we continue down this road. When we look at this project going forward as a forward investment, we’re asking what did we learn from the last one.

I don’t say this stuff for the goodness of my health. I would be a much happier person if we didn’t have to go through this process time and time again but, I mean, that’s part of the concern here, is how we

prepare. I mean, it was about a week ago we were talking about $299 million as our upper limit to our risk, and many of us, like myself, envisioned a 75/25 split and the government’s costs would be $75 million. Well, today we learned it just grew by $25 million in a heartbeat over a signature on a piece of paper. I mean, there was no guarantee that it would continue to be a 75/25 split. As we all know, it was a $200 million estimate a year or a year and a half ago, two years ago, and things have changed. I recognize that. I’m not certainly fooled, but to cause concern at the same time, we have to ask ourselves about the ripple effects of these particular initiatives. You know, we’re fighting for every ounce or every single peanut on this side of the House for investments on our views, but $25 million, oh, don’t worry, we booked more. Here it is. No problem, from the Cabinet side.

A week ago we were scrambling and trying to get government to look at our $4 million asks, and they complained, woe is me, we could not afford another ounce from Members’ benefits of suggestions, and we were only suggesting to government’s bottom line on their budgets. We were trying to put money in your budgets. I wasn’t taking any of that money home, nor was any Regular Member. Yet, we were told the cupboard is bare, absolutely bare. Then we hear Minister Miltenberger go on and on about the fiscal strategy, how we wanted just a little more, and the Members’ perspectives on how our sides were worried about things like prevention and addictions, and how important those things were to us and the views of the Assembly, but yet there was just never any money for those things. Not enough money, that is. No. But as I recall our discussion back to this very point now, which is but there’s 25… These aren’t pennies from heaven. These are more like gold bricks falling into the side of Cabinet. I mean, they can always find $25 million for their projects. It’s a struggle.

I wanted to focus my comments strictly around the $5 million. I do have further comments for the $60 million portion. What I’m going to say is I’m going to save my questions more so for the $60 million only because I thought people are kind of getting exhausted on this particular budget item or budget line.

But there is one area I would like to ask, which is will the Minister guarantee that there will be no carry-overs of this $5 million? We have heard repeatedly how they need this $5 million as soon as possible. If we look at the calendar that the Assembly at the earliest it can pass it is at the 14th of March, that leaves it slightly over two weeks for them to spend $5 million. My fear is that this money is being… The $5 million portion. I’m not talking about the $60 million. The $5 million is being thrust upon the Members so quickly so they can get a commitment out there in a contract, but it won’t be

spent and it will be applied for through the FMB process to carry it over to the next budget.

What type of guarantee will the Minister provide this House that this money was of such urgency, the $5 million portion only, that they will have it all completely spent before the end of the budget year? Thank you.