Bob Bromley

Sorry. I dragged off there. To see what will be recovered through the Disaster Relief Fund. I know it won’t cover all, but I think we were hoping it will cover a lot of it. If I can just get that completed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Auditor General of Canada’s report on the delivery of income security programs contains shocking confirmations of failure in service. For we Members who frequently intervene on behalf of constituents receiving completely unsatisfactory treatment, the findings are no surprise. The report stresses the vital importance of ensuring vulnerable citizens are supported in their times of need and help towards greater self-reliance. In many of our communities, where there simply aren’t enough jobs, it’s income assistance or starve. For the injured, disabled and ill, there is...

I think I’ve got it. This is just simply the higher cost of electricity. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The million dollars, is that to look after Nunavut artifacts at our cost? Is that what that’s all about?

Okay. So is this $1.212 million strictly with respect to the Inuvik situation?

Thank you. I appreciate that we’re going to look at this and figure out how to try and repatriate people, including children. I guess the frustrating part is the Standing Committee on Social Programs did have a close look at this, made recommendations. I don’t think the program review office needs to redo that work. What’s needed now is some implementation on those recommendations.

Thank you. On that basis I appreciate the Minister’s comments there. I want to be sure that everybody realizes and I’m getting it right when I discuss this as a go/no go decision point. So I do have a number of comments.

There have been a lot of changes to this project over a very short period of time. Every one of them have pointed at increasing costs to the GNWT and also mounting costs to the total project. So just to review those, the original agreement that the federal government dangled in front of our noses was 75/25 at a cost of $200 million. That was going to cost this government $50...

Thank you. I hope that works out. As I understand it, these are fairly dramatic in terms of the size and implication. The wiping out a road is a small thing in an event such as this. Obviously, there is a concern there, but it sounds like the department is aware of that and working on that.

The Minister mentioned $2 million for maintenance, and that remains to be seen – again it’s an estimate – and that there will be hiring as a result of that. He used that to justify the economic development aspects of the road. That’s a very strange statement to me. We can hire people without having a road...

Just for clarity, Madam Chair, are you including here now the $5 million for the Inuvik-Tuk highway 177?

Of course, warming is also double the rate in this area compared to down south, and so we will be seeing impacts of that that are not on the road itself but that will connect to the road in an insidious way, and so there will be costs from that. But I am learning that so now the work to be done is not just the 50 bridges and so on, or 60 river crossings and 10 bridges, but it’s also to deal with this highly problematic 12 kilometres, and we have not designed the highway yet on how to deal with that 12 kilometres. Have I got that correct?