Bob Bromley

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?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had posed a question, if you will recall, to the Minister. Would you like me to repeat that question?

Obviously, for a project of this magnitude, significant work has to be done there. Just in response to the Minister’s response, I didn’t say it was bad. I said the trend of increasing debt is not something I’m happy with. The decisions that are being made that end up with that result.

I’d like to comment a little bit on the dreams, you know, that we want to be doing things. In fact, that’s probably the biggest source of my concerns, is that I am totally convinced we could be doing things, and I’m totally convinced we have the capacity within our people and the resources to do them. I’m...

I suspect we can conclude a little more than that, but I’ll leave it at that. I would say, also, that clearly is not 67 percent. It’s $200 million. In fact, as the costs go up, the proportion paid for by the Government of Canada goes down, despite the fact that the Minister indicated that the project would not proceed unless it was 75 percent. That’s an observation, but a concerning one. Is there not a policy, could I ask the Minister of Finance, that we’ve generally adhered to in the past where the Government of Canada in fact pays for the road building and GNWT pays and looks after...

Undoubtedly the reason this Minister is such a great Finance Minister. The federal government has committed 60 percent of the project, 67 percent, $200 million. Obviously that’s not full cost. In fact, the federal government has said explicitly that anything beyond this must fully be paid for by GNWT. Am I correct in assuming that if we are $40 million or $50 million or $100 million over, that would be fully the responsibility of the GNWT?

Thanks for that information. So we will, for sure, have that money for consideration during our fall capital budget, that $40 million for other expenditures. Just looking for confirmation again. Thank you.

I do have quite a list of questions, so I will let my colleagues have a chance to speak here. I would note, in any projects that I’ve undertaken, it’s always the easy part that gets done first. It’s the last 10 or 15 percent that’s the most difficult. I’ve found that to be true, in fact, with our pricing of infrastructure. There is no way this bridge is only going to cost $299 million but – sorry, this road will cost that much, but I will be asking more questions and looking for more details on which to base a decision.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Am I to understand that $40,000 of this will be federal dollars provided at some point during the fiscal year? Thank you.

Thank you. That may have been the Minister’s thinking, but there was certainly no commitment from this House for $150 million for this project that I’m aware of. Now we’re being asked to approve another $5 million because we still have not proved up the gravel resources that, in fact, we’ve come back to the government trough on before, without getting what we need. So at what point do we say enough is enough and let’s put our dollars where we should be putting them rather than throwing them into a sinkhole?