Thank you, Madam Chair. You’re probably going to hear a number of similar comments that have already been echoed by some of colleagues, so I’ll go in really no particular order here.
First and foremost, I think the Inuvik-Tuk highway did pose a bit of concern for a number of Members, especially under the royalty of granular, and I strongly encourage the department to be a bit more transparent as we move forward on the process to make sure that that whole process is clearly stated for the record. We know that this is the first of many
segments of this road to be constructed and I think it’s imperative and paramount that that standard is clearly displayed by the department on how granular royalties came about. We’ve got a number of other land claim groups that are going to be part of the overall Mackenzie Valley Highway system, and I think we need to be very consistent as we move forward. But I think the department has an obligation and I think they could have done a little bit better job in preparing committee and the public with respect to what this royalty program is, how it’s being set up and how it’s being implemented.
The issue of the Deh Cho Bridge has come up a couple times here in general comments and I just want to echo more of some of the facts around it. We know that according to the public accounts being tabled of March 31, 2013, that there was a $600,000 shortfall in the collection of the toll, which begs to ask when – and I think I asked this in the House – are we going to do an audit on our toll system? I believe it’s warranted. When you see a shortfall of that magnitude, one does have to ask why. What happened to the traffic? If the traffic flow was reasonable, why would it not be to our advantage to get very close to the numbers of predictability, which obviously we did not do.
We also have the issue of, I think, we have an opportunity here with the Deh Cho Bridge to finally look at a rear-view mirror approach to our toll system in general. I think you’ve heard Mr. Bouchard, who brought up some of the regulations regarding a lot of people with commercial plates who are over their limit. In a lot of cases, these Yellowknife Members or any Northwest Territories resident who has a commercial small truck that is a half-ton or three-quarter ton pulling even such things as a holiday trailer or a fifth-wheel for their family is not exempt from the regulations, which I think is wrong. We know very well that we have a number of businesses out there – a lot of them are in my riding of Range Lake – who use their commercial truck for pulling things such as their travel trailer if they’re going down to Hay River to go fishing for the weekend, and they’re over their limit if they’re pulling a trailer or a very large boat. We know that that’s more of a taxation question that they’ve got to deal with their personal taxes and their business, but I don’t believe that we should be getting in the way of business by having a regulation that imposes the personal use of, I think, commercial vehicles with commercial plates. I’m asking this department to do a thorough review on that specific policy as it has come up a number of times in my riding, and I know others have brought that up as well.
I also believe that if we’re on the subject of the Deh Cho Bridge, the department has said in the past that they were going to do a retrospective analysis within six months of its completion. Well, we’re well beyond six months now of that completion date and
yet we still have not seen a retrospective analysis, and those are the words of the previous Minister as well. I’m asking this department when will this analysis take place, what is the depth of this analysis, what is the mandate, what are the terms of reference, and what should we expect by doing that? I think if doing it just to regurgitate what the Auditor General did a few years ago, really, in essence, would be a waste of everybody’s time.
That said, we do have a small amount of residual money left for the Deh Cho Bridge, and I think this is an opportunity for the department to be very transparent, what this amount of money that’s left in the fund, how it’s going to be used for the deficiencies, and whether or not there’s going to be a shortfall for the number of deficiencies that are left with the bridge. We are all aware that we were left with a taillight warranty with this bridge and now the taxpayers are going to be involved picking up the tab.
You heard, possibly from Members in the past, that we are patiently waiting for the completion of the transportation plan, but more importantly, the overall Highway Strategy. This has been something that has been talked about for a number of years now, ever since I started as a Member of the 17th Assembly. But I think with the Corridors for Canada III, that potential money that’s sitting on our doorstep without a plan, it makes one think, what exactly is the overall ideology of the department moving forward? I strongly encourage that the department bring that plan through proper public consultation and through a vetting process of committee so that we can have that high level discussion before these Corridors for Canada III monies start to trickle in. As you are well aware, these are matching dollars, so I know the department is going to have to come to this side of the House to appropriate monies to match this Corridors money that we’re going to be getting from the feds.
I’m hoping my next topic has the ears of the Finance Minister and the Finance department, because he’s always asking for ways to make money. I think there’s a beautiful way we can make money, and I think our airports are possibly the key for making that money. There are a number of our airports that are very high use and are actually quite extensively used by many different airlines and many different residents. I’m talking about your Inuvik, Norman Wells, you have your Yellowknife and you have your Hay River, just mentioning a couple of these higher use airports. If you look down south, a lot of jurisdictions in Canada have looked at privatization of their airports. They’ve actually liquidated their assets and leveraged their assets because the governments of the day running airports couldn’t do a good enough job. It was costing the taxpayer way too much money. By them privatizing them, they actually had a lift. In that first
year they made the money from their capitalization of projects and they were able to leverage their airports for profit.
We struggle, as a territory, for revenue. I challenge this department to work with the Department of Finance to see if there is viability and an opportunity for the privatization of our airports, because I truly believe we have an opportunity.
Last but not least, I’ve mentioned this many times in the House, is evolving our procurement process, especially in the Department of Transportation, and we’ve seen problems with this in the past under the term of negotiated and sole-sourcing with our procurement process in Transportation.
I’ll be speaking to this more in depth here because the Minister of Finance did table, last week, the findings of the government contracts over $5,000 and the percentage of monies that are being spent in sole-sourcing and negotiated contracts and I’ll be using that information at a further time.
But I believe we have a problem. We have a very antiquated policy when it deals with negotiating and sole-sourcing. Our procurement for our road, the Inuvik-Tuk highway is no different. That is a prime example. I think the process that we have needs a formal review. I’ll say this again and I’ll continue to mention that for the remainder of my term if it doesn’t get the attention it deserves.
The reason why I’m concerned about our procurement process is the fact that once we do negotiate a contract or sole-source policy for the procurement, our BIP is out the window. Our BIP does not have any bearing, which means that our business, our northern businesses, any northern businesses are completely shut out of the process and the procurement process, procurement purchasing and the building of any highway in the Northwest Territories, which leads me to be very concerned about how we’re moving as a territory and trying to build the capacity of our business in the Northwest Territories. When these business dollars are going down south under the guise of a procurement and negotiated contract policy, and when the BIP is not even something that the government here is concerned about, I’ve got a concern. I have to protect the rights; I have to protect the dollars of our businesses; I have to protect it to make sure these businesses have employees and these employees can pay their mortgage and their car payments and everything else and put food on the table.
We’ve been challenged by the Minister of Finance to put 2,000 people in housing and bring them to the Northwest Territories. Getting rid of the BIP process in large-scale contracting is definitely not in that best interest to support that initiative.
Thank you very much. I appreciate committee allowing me to talk a little bit about the general comments of Transportation. Thank you.