Madam Chair, this money is carried over money, so it is not new money. I will ask Mr. Aumond if he can speak to some of the detail of what the money is going to be put to, the use it is going to be put. Thank you.

Mr. Aumond.

Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Mr. Dolynny.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the deputy minister for clarifying that. The second question I have in this category is regarding the Ingraham Trail or the Giant Mine remediation, or we refer it to as the Highway No. 4 bypass area. There is a $17 million allocation. We were led to believe in the maps of distant past that this $17 million was earmarked from the Infrastructure Canada money. This was federal money assigned to enhance infrastructure across the Northwest Territories. It was part of a larger number that was earmarked for many other communities, townships and hamlets throughout the Northwest Territories. This money was put into budget in 2013-2014 or previous budget, and it appears that it’s up for a supplementary here and I’m not quite understanding with the terminology here. It sounds like there’s a different account that it’s coming from, or a different category that it’s being attributed to. So if I could get some clarity as to what exactly or why are we seeing the $17 million reappear today in this supplementary appropriation.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger.

When the Giant Mine Remediation Project was initiated, the GNWT’s share that we put on for a lot of the surface work, $23 million back in 2004-05, and as the remediation project proceeded, the issue of the road became relevant and to the fore. So what was a decision that was made, that $23 million was in O and M. So it was agreed that we would reprofile and reclassify $17 million of that $23 million to cover the cost of this road that’s being put in around Giant Mine. So it’s not detracting from other capital projects, it’s not being taken from a pot that was dedicated for other areas or other communities or other specific projects, it’s tied directly to the broader Giant Mine Remediation Project.

I’m probably going to have to perform some Magnum P.I. work on this project. I was led to believe that this money was Infrastructure Canada money and that only in the last number of years, that because of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that this money was deemed remediation work and all of a sudden it was being categorized to a new pot of money.

My question still remains that the area of Yellowknife was earmarked for a $17 million project out of the Infrastructure Canada budget. It appears that this money, in my humble opinion, has now been redirected to another pot of money under remediation under Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, which then begs to ask where is our $17 million project, which should be earmarked for the Yellowknife area. I’m really concerned that if that’s indeed the case – again, I’m trying to follow the money – I think the people of Yellowknife need and deserve an explanation as to why would they be shortchanged a $17 million project if that money indeed was earmarked originally under Infrastructure Canada. Where is our project?

As much as I don’t like to disagree with Members, in this case the Member is categorically mistaken. The money that we’re talking about was voted and put aside back in 2004-05 as our part of the broader Giant Mine Remediation Project. That $23 million was taken, $17 million of that was in O and M, put it into capital to pay for this road.

I’m not sure exactly what project the Member is talking about that he thinks Yellowknife got shortchanged on. If it’s the bypass road, that was Build Canada money, but no one has been shortchanged. That money, that $17 million from out of the $23 million that we as a government put on the table as our share of the broader project is being spent exactly where it was appropriated to, which was to the Giant Mine Remediation Project. It just moved from O and M to capital and our liability goes down a commensurate $17 million by spending that money on the project.

Again, I’m not delusional in my thinking here. I do remember, and I do recall, and I did take extensive notes during previous budget periods.

Madam Chair, I’m going to leave it at that. I mean, I don’t want to waste more of committee’s time. I will investigate and I will report back to committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Next I have Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk about the amount of activity that happened on the winter roads, and of course myself and the Minister have personally experienced that 701-kilometre road trip from Fort Good Hope to Fort

Simpson. The Minister was appreciated by the Sahtu people.

I wanted to ask about the capital infrastructure on what he has on the books. It’s something that would help with our safety in the Sahtu region. Would the bridge – and the bridge specifically that the Minister and I talked about – the bridge between Fort Good Hope and Norman Wells… The Minister, in his papers, talked about the Mackenzie Valley Winter Road Bridge Program. Is that in line with speaking about what we do about this bridge that is sitting and not being used but has over $1 million of infrastructure that is not being put to use? I am questioning the Minister on this one here.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The money identified here tied to winter roads is clearly going to be put to use, as the Member pointed out. They travelled the winter road last winter. There was a lot of traffic. It was heavily pounded out and, in fact, shut down at different times.

The issue of the Oscar Bridge, I would ask Minister Ramsay if he would want to speak specifically to the fate of that particular piece of infrastructure.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are going to continue to move forward with the dialogue with industry and community leaders in the Sahtu as we look for ways to enhance the winter road in the region until we get an all-weather road. We will have to continue to work together to build those relationships.

As to the Oscar Creek Bridge, we are hopeful that at some point in time we are going to be able to access federal infrastructure dollars, at which time we will be at a much better position to address issues like the Oscar Creek Bridge and other requirements on that winter road system in the central Mackenzie Valley and continue toward an all-weather road in the Mackenzie Valley. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the Ministers’ responses and note the activity could maybe be ramping up in a section in the Fort Good Hope area because of the parcels that are going to possibly be taken by the oil companies. There are already two that Shell is going to be working on in that area. I’m certainly looking forward to the Minister’s announcement if the federal government does help us with some federal infrastructure.

I also see some other issues with the Mackenzie Valley Highway environmental assessment issue

coming up. I want to ask the Minister with regard to the activity and safety of the infrastructure that we are going to be putting on the Sahtu winter road that would secure the confidence of the people who use that road, that this is going to be sufficient and going to be enough to handle the loads of last year, close to 6,000 loads coming in in a short period of time to serve the oil companies. I’m looking forward to some level of confidence and security that the people who use these roads will say yes, there is enough infrastructure, given the money left in the government’s pockets, to ease people’s minds getting on the winter road and not having those thousands of loads coming through with some level of safety. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Three key points, if I may. The bill before us talks about putting to good use the carry-over, the money that didn’t get spent last year on a critical area. As we all agreed at the start of this Assembly, we would have two years of fiscal discipline and then in year three/four we would add $50 million to the infrastructure budget. So the capital plan is being referred to Members for their review prior to the fall session. It contains those resources so we will have to have that discussion with the Members.

Then the government, through Minister Ramsay, is at work talking to the federal government, along with Minister Robert C. McLeod on the MACA side, on renewal of the Build Canada Fund. If that comes to fruition and pays off, then we will have, as well, some additional resources. So while we have $3 billion in unmet needs which far outstrip our resources, those additional resources will be very helpful, and we’ll have the broad discussion about making sure they’re put to the best use.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Yakeleya, your time is up. Committee, you’re on page 13, highways, not previously authorized, $42.258 million. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to get confirmation that, first of all, the Deh Cho Bridge total cost will stay within the $202 million. Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

That is correct, Mr. Chairman.