Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. For that, we’ll go to Mr. Neudorf.

Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Mr. Bouchard.

Yes, thank you, Madam…Mr. Chair. I had it all day yesterday; you can get it today.

I guess the concerns are that we continue to hear a lot of things from contractors and from individuals of the opportunities that are there. I guess these anticipated numbers that we were given when we first got the proposal and the numbers, have we met any of the expectations? They predicted they were going to be hiring 90 percent contractors and 90 percent Northerners. Were there any indicators like that and agreements in place?

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This project has met our expectations and was a construction project with a finite timeline. If we could have that same type of success with a lot of the other, say, operating mines, they would be happier and so would we. So the project has met expectations. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Bouchard.

That’s good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Continuing on with the questions here, I have Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to say at the outset – and I’m speaking of the Inuvik to Tuk Highway Project – that I support this project but I have serious concerns about the ask that we’re being asked to consider here in this budget. That’s the $40 million change in cash flow to

accommodate the new construction schedule and timetable that has been put before us.

I expressed my concerns the other day. Our cash position is going to require us to do some borrowing that’s going to add to our expenses. It seems to me that this is being done with little regard for our fiscal strategy and our fiscal position. Members are constantly being told there’s no money, there’s no money, there’s no money, and we ask for $100,000 for a particular program or service that we think is important and we’re told there’s no money, and yet it seems that we can turn around and find $40 million or borrow $40 million and find or borrow $20 million pretty much at the drop of a hat. So, it’s not so much the project that I’m concerned about but the way that it’s now being proposed to be funded.

My first question to the Minister is: When did the Minister and government know that there was going to be a need to change the cash flow payments for this project? This $40 million is an increase over what was projected for this budget year. There’s an increase projected for the next budget year as well. So, when did the department or when did the Minister or the government know that there was going to be the need to change how the money was flowing to the contractor? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I just want to reassure the Member and the people listening in here that we do all this money management with complete regard for our fiscal situation, which is why we get the clean audits and which is why we have the Aa1 credit rating and we managed to absorb some of these unexpected shocks because we always keep in mind looking after the taxpayers’ dollars as if it were our own. So I want to reassure the Member of that.

When the project was started, it was flagged right from the beginning that cash flow adjustment would probably be required, we just didn’t know how much. With a year under our belt, it became clear, once we actually moved dirt, built some roads, put in a lot of culverts and bridges, that we needed to adjust this cash flow to enable us to meet the schedule, the three years of embankment work followed by the fourth year.

Of equal importance is to keep this project on budget. So this is the most economical way to move forward. If we were to have the project run out of money and lay down tools and go away for the rest of the winter after starting up and they’re done in January and we end up paying $30 million to $40 million in fees and extra costs, the contractor’s lost opportunity to meet the targets, the budget, then indeed we would be a case of being penny wise and pound foolish where we would have a few dollars saved maybe in interest, but it would cost us $30 million to $40 million extra not

budgeted for. This $40 million is part of the project cost. So it would indeed be an unfortunate circumstance and a bad fiscal decision not to keep this project going. To put a stick in the spokes of the project and the very issues that MLA Bouchard talked about, for example, about all the local employment and local business, that would be a distinct disadvantage for the project and a negative impact on all the workers, all the businesses that are doing business right now. This is, we believe, necessary to keep this project solvent and alive.

I know the Minister said that they knew early on, but I think again this is a situation where Regular Members weren’t advised and if we were advised, it certainly wasn’t spelled out to us that this was going to be coming at us later down the line. The department may have known, the Minister may have known, but I don’t think Regular Members were advised and told this contract is in flux, we’re going to be coming back at you probably at some point in time to ask for a change in how we’re cash-flowing the money. I certainly don’t remember that we got that kind of a firm explanation of the need to change things. It’s one more thing adding up to a list of things that I feel I’m not getting advised of.

My other question has to do with the cost of borrowing this money. I think we determined yesterday that it’s somewhere around $50,000 all told with all the extra amounts we need to borrow. For this particular project, whatever interest is attached to the borrowing of this $40 million for this project, that’s an increase in cost for this project. Is this a cost that the contractor is going to bear because it is a benefit for the contractor for us to speed things up or is this a cost that the government bears? Thank you.

It’s a cost that the government bears. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for that. Maybe the Minister doesn’t see it this way, but I get the sense that the contractor is running us and that the contractor is telling us I need to change my schedule and it’s going to cost you an extra whatever, $20,000 or $30,000, but it doesn’t seem as though the government is in control of, not the contract per se, but the way the contract is being managed. I suspect that the government would disagree with me, but I am saying this is the perception that I get, this is the feeling that I get. We are bending over backwards to do what the contractor wants us to do and it’s costing us money. I have a bit of a problem with that. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

One last question. The Minister mentions that it’s a design/build project. It’s a set price. I have great difficulty with these statements for many projects where it’s a set price. I have to ask, if it’s a set price, why are we having to eat the interest cost? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Aumond.

Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Continuing on with questions, I have Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This road from Inuvik to Tuk certainly has some national

significance. The Member spoke about the support for this road. We’re talking about the request before us. The people up in the Beaufort-Delta certainly did their part with regard to grabbing the federal government’s attention to see this road get started. Today I should talk about building this road.

The federal government, you know, dropped a few million into our pockets to get it going and made arrangements. No small, easy task, considering how difficult at times it is for our government to get funding from the federal government. It was all due to some strong support by the people in the Beaufort-Delta.

As I was looking through this budget, I’m trying to figure out what is the message here. What message are we sending our people? We clearly heard from various sources that the feds want to build one road at a time. We really want to push strong for the Mackenzie Valley Highway. We heard that they are interested in building one road at a time.

This is an unprecedented area. If you look at Russia, they have a similar terrain. They’re building roads in the North and we’re also building roads in the North here. The message is: Can we do this within the prescribed budget that we have and the accounting is set in place? More importantly, we’re building and we’re advancing skills like trades to build those. That’s most important for me, is that we’re developing the young people up there with skills and, looking at that area, how much better off it will be in the future if we continue to build that skill. It’s no different than us building the Deh Cho Bridge or when you have highways down in the southern part here. People benefit from it.

Looking at this road here, what is the message? The federal government is certainly watching us. They’re saying, here, I’ve given you $200 million. We’ve given you money. The next big project, if it goes well and goes through, is $700 million, then so on and so forth.

Can you, as a government, really take on the task of building infrastructure in the Northwest Territories? Do you have it? I know they’re watching. The Prime Minister especially is looking at it.

So I look at this and I’m going to be asking in the future, what have we learned from this experience. There is certainly a lot of experience being learned in the Tuk-Inuvik road. There must be so many checks and balances that it’s crazy. But it’s there because of all the process and regulations. We certainly want to take this learning experience and use it in the Sahtu and build from Norman Wells south to Wrigley and Wrigley to the north. So we want to look at both ends. We want to start, also, but we have to wait. That’s a matter of fact. So we’re looking at this experience.

I’m happy to hear that there are contractors and subcontractors. There were 44 subcontractors. Seventy-five percent were northern subcontractors. We can dig into the details of that and dig into the workers.

The Minister made a comment that we’re looking at this project with the dollars and we’ll look after these dollars as if it were our own. Well, we approved these dollars, so it is our own, on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada and the Northwest Territories. So there’s no higher level to request a $40 million accelerated advance, because these dollars are our own and it comes through the process here.

I’ve been thinking about that and I’m thinking about this road here and I’m looking at our past experience on multi-million dollar infrastructure in the Northwest Territories and bringing that experience to this forefront here and what are the lessons learned about whatever infrastructure we’re going to have. Our regions are going to have millions of dollars of infrastructure money from one department or the next. Here we are asking to accelerate this. I’m hoping that the department is working in conjunction, in partnership, with the contractors, and that we are doing this, because we are at the forefront.

My colleague Ms. Bisaro asked if the contractors were taking the lead. If that’s the case, we need to have a little more discussion, but I’m hoping the government can say we’re working in partnership with them. We are the one taking…because this money is being approved at this level here, the $40 million, to accelerate and to speed it up.

I wanted to make that comment. But overall, the whole infrastructure of the Tuk to Inuvik road, number one, we’re building skills and we’re building opportunities. In Inuvik and Tuk the economics are not very good right now. As my friend Mr. Bromley said earlier, zip is happening in that region, and zip is happening in the Sahtu now.

In the smaller communities and the Inuvik-Tuk road, I’m going to support this infrastructure request because I think it’s very important in the bigger picture. But I also want to say, because I’m just specifically focusing on this road here, all the requests and needs that Ms. Bisaro talked about should also be in the forefront of the minds when there are requests for other regions. This is a huge chunk of money to accelerate the project. I believe the staff are doing the best they can to explain it to us, given the moving project that we have, that it will be okay and the other regions with their infrastructure also being considered that we can look at work at how we support other regions that have similar requests.

So I want to say that I’m going to support the people up in that area and I think they’re doing a good job. I think they have a lot to learn and they

have done a lot of work to bring this to the forefront. We would have never done it unless the federal government was involved, and they became involved because of such strong work done by the leadership up there. So we should celebrate them.

Not all things are as smooth as we think sometimes, you know? So I hope we get the same support when we start looking at the Sahtu roads. Let’s celebrate the people. Good on them. We should be working with them. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the Member’s comments and support and his strategic, broad view of the project and how it’s going to fit into the broader road development and how we are cutting our teeth and earning our spurs on this particular project, when we work things out, and we’ll be taking that experience with us. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Continuing on with questions on this page, I have Mr. Bromley.