Bob Bromley

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did think the instructions of the Chair were for the Minister to take a break to prepare an answer. Just kidding, Mr. Chairman.

I think the Minister, first of all, didn’t respond to my colleague Ms. Bisaro accurately when she asked about the glacier ice on the road, and I think he now understands that, in fact, there is remnant Wisconsin Glacier ice in the northerly parts of the route proposed for this highway. Obviously, we know from our experience with highways throughout the Northwest Territories that this translates to dollars, especially when we’re talking...

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to pick up where I left off there. The Minister was claiming that I said the people of this region were not worthy, and various other twists to my words. I thought I remembered saying the people were spectacular and the region was spectacular, and they have huge capacity up there if they are involved in real economic development. It does seem to be a feature of this government that they often twist words and make our comments sound as if we have no trust in our people and stuff like this, but I do want to point that out, that in fact I was saying that the...

Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe that’s true. It was a policy in the days of yore. It certainly is not any longer. What concerns me is, as time goes by, the proportion being paid for by the federal government declines steadily. Of course, this is all within context. I’m not just complaining about the cost of the road or anything. This is within the context of the other priorities that we have and the infrastructure deficit that we’re building as we choose to pour it all into this one project.

The Minister has noted that he thinks we can afford this. We are making decisions for the 17th...

We know that the Minister of Transportation has said this project would not proceed if there was anything less than 75 percent. Where does that put us?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to follow up on a few of the comments and questions we’ve heard here. The first is the assumption that had been made. I don’t think many assumptions are being made, but we do have a number of risks out there, and the assumption is that some of them will prove to be real.

I’d just like to know, in the number of projects that the Minister is familiar with of this nature – and I know, as the Minister said, we’ve never done a project of this magnitude – but where we have an 85 percent design going into it, how many of them has he known the cost to go down on?

Thank you. I believe my colleagues corrected me there. It was $40 million. So that will be happening this fiscal year, we will get a transfer of $40 million from the federal government for this cost. Is that correct? Thank you.

I don’t think there will be a big crowd there. In fact, the economic analysis done by this government has shown that because of the efficiency of the road, we will lose something in the order of 1,500 or 1,600 person years of employment, which is typical of the oil and gas industry. It’s a very low ratio of person jobs per invest, $1 million investment, and the loss will be very large here according to our studies. So the record we have is $7 million. We’re going to go find the gravel. We didn’t. The government came back, we need another $5 million, we got a few weeks left in the fiscal year...

The Minister is twisting my words again, but he’s getting pretty good at that. Obviously, I would say that the amount is well over $100 million already. We know that, having already spent $11 million or $12 million on this, so the Minister is already low-balling it here. But I guess I would ask how the hydro development is going to help lower costs for the people of the Beau-Del, but that’s getting a little far astray. The Minister keeps making remarks that take us away from that project. That’s really all I have. I won’t be supporting this project and I would love the opportunity to support a...

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...