My questions are for the Premier, to do with Deh Cho Bridge. I must have missed the dozens of briefings that were provided….
Interjection
Check the attendance record? I think I was there.
Thirty-five years is a long time. There was a cost-benefit analysis done. There are projections. It’s a business case based on volumes of traffic that will go over the bridge that will pay a commercial toll, which will in turn help the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation make the payments on the construction of the bridge.
I would like to know if the G.N.W.T. is going to guarantee the bridge construction loan.
I haven’t been a party to any discussions on guaranteeing a loan beyond the $9 million guarantee we have in place. There is, however, a commitment, as the Members know, that above and beyond the operational money that goes into the ferry and ice crossing, the government did commit another $2 million a year so the tolls could remain acceptable and within the limits established in the Act.
Mr. Speaker, how can the Premier assure us that our contribution to the Deh Cho Bridge project is capped at $2 million per year? And I understand it is indexed. How are we going to set the money that is going to go into the bridge project that is related to the ferry operations and the creation, construction and maintenance of the ice bridge? We’ve got dollar values on those now. Are those going to be subject to increase, as well, as time goes ahead? Is there anything on this that’s capped? Are the tolls for the commercial tonnage capped? Is our contribution capped? Is the other contribution that’s laid out capped at anything, or is this just going to turn into a free-for-all?
Mr. Speaker, the framework that is in place for the Deh Cho Bridge Project allows for indexing, as the Member has stated, whether it’s the $2 million figure that is out there, the fixed-price contract that’s established out there right now — that’s with the Bridge Corporation and the contractor that will be going ahead with the construction of that bridge…. As for any changes, that would have to occur as highlighted. The changes that would have to be approved would have to be approved in this House, once the bridge is in place and transportation starts flowing across it.
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that any changes to this government’s contribution would have to be approved by the House, because the $2 million we are putting in was never approved by this House. Let the record show we never approved the $2 million a year indexed over 35 years. So I don’t know what it means when the Premier says it would have to be approved by the House. What does that mean?
Mr. Speaker, I’m going to ask the Premier: who is paying the $10 million fully funded contingency for the Deh Cho Bridge?
Mr. Speaker, the contingency is part of the overall construction contract, and that would be through the loan the Bridge Corporation would be getting.
I’d like to ask the Premier: would the bridge project have collapsed if the bridge contractor from New Brunswick had not stepped up the day before the deadline with an additional $2 million equity? Would the bridge project have collapsed without that?
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Your question is hypothetical. I will allow the Minister to answer.
As the Member highlighted in her Member’s statement, the concession agreement talked about a maximum of $5 million equity. The Bridge Corporation could have come in lower than that, and we could have, in fact, as a government, looked at it if they had a dollar value. Of course, that would severely affect their rate of return. But there was a maximum — not a minimum — set, as the Member stated.
