Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister responsible for Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this will certainly fall into play with the nutritious food that has been highlighted in this House, working along with my colleague at Health and Social Services with respect to what the Member is alluding to. In the past there has been some vitamins given out to the students. When I was at Chief Jimmy Bruno School back in the old days we used to get those colourful vitamins that we were taking on a daily basis.
Mr. Speaker, this can certainly be part of the discussion that the organizations will be having as an advisory group and giving us direction as this should be a part of the nutrition. So the group will certainly discuss that going forward. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge and appreciate the answer the Minister provided. Mr. Speaker, I know in an ideal world we’d be able to provide hot breakfasts to all our young folks and these types of programs. That’s why I’m trying to take a measured approach and possibly a program that we could provide and afford. Would the Minister ensure that in this nutritional food basket study that they’re planning to do, that this multivitamin concept gets a high priority of consideration? I’m not saying as in subject it to it has to come out as a high priority answer, but I want to make sure it gets full consideration up front. I don’t want to prejudice the dialogue and the research that may come through this study, but I absolutely want to make sure it gets full consideration and costed out and weigh the pros and cons. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we’re aware that some schools are providing vitamins to some students. Not only that, but the organizations that I’ve highlighted in this House are clearly listening to the Member and I’m sure they’ll take that into consideration. We, as the two departments working closely with these organizations as well, can take this matter into consideration and if it could be part of the nutritious food programming. Then, by all means, those are the discussions we need to have. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the faith that the Minister has that these people will be listening to Hansard, but just to ensure that they do get the message that this is an important issue that can deliver good things for our youth, would the Minister be willing to pen a letter to let this group know, that’s doing this review, that it is a priority of some people in this House and it could provide significant if not, certainly, substantial benefits for the health of our young people, noting the lack of nutritional items I noted in my Member’s statement? Would the Minister be willing to pen a letter to say, will you make sure you take this seriously? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot, as the Minister of Education, dictate where the money should be spent on specific items. It would be up to the group to give us an indication and also the inventory of where there are gaps and that’s where we’ll allocate the funding that’s been identified. Mr. Speaker, it is noted that that will be part of the discussion that we’ll be having with the group. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are on the Deh Cho Bridge Project and they’re directed to the Minister of Finance.
Certainly we recognize now that there has been a lot of mismanagement and contractors disarray, costs are soaring, and the Minister of Transportation is working hard to stabilize that situation. I’m wondering, Mr. Speaker, what is the impact of the new costs of the bridge on the government’s debt, particularly with respect to our borrowing limit. As people know, we are obligated to stay within a limit of $500 million. I appreciate that response. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister responsible for Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the debt or the $15 million that’s being requested is equivalent to about 10 percent over the initial cost. So that will be $15 million added to our cost as a government. So with the $15 million factored in, as we’ve said, it will shrink our borrowing limit by that equivalent amount. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for those general comments. Perhaps the Minister could interpret for us what sort of flexibility we’re giving up in terms of pursuing other things that this government might have wished to pursue. Thank you.
As we look at this $15 million, the other point to keep in mind is that it’s significantly self-liquidating through the tolls and all the other arrangements that have been signed as part of this deal. But going forward, because of this debt and other debt that we’ve agreed to accumulate as part of the current economic downturn, we are going to be going down in our borrowing limit. In 2011-12, available borrowing capacity will shrink to about $85 million. Thank you.
I appreciate that more specific information. In the immediate future, and I’m sure there are other implications in the longer term, but what is this government doing to minimize our risk? What are the additional risks that we’re facing and what are we doing to minimize those risks? Thank you.
The Minister responsible for Public Works laid out all the steps that are currently being taken to make sure that this project goes ahead. It’s 50 percent complete. It’s had some challenges, but it’s going to be, at this point we hope, the final costs will be about 10 percent over the budgeted amount. We are going to work closely, as the Member indicated in his own statement, to stabilize this particular project, where it is right now, sort out the current challenges and then take a critical look, along with the Members, about what we’ve learned from the exercise, how do we go forward and what other particular issues that may be out there that could become major concerns for us. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Your final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, again, appreciate those comments. I think we, indeed, need to take some serious looks at what’s happening. I mentioned the spiral into poverty that can happen in families and certainly when we have soaring costs in the midst of an economic recession and so on, these are the sorts of things that I’m talking about. There are more in the future. We need to plan for them. What is the Minister doing, though, Mr. Speaker, on the larger picture side to ensure that this government puts in place a mechanism to ensure that future Assemblies are not saddled with exactly this situation? Mahsi.
That broad policy issue and debate and discussion, I think, has to take place as a Legislature, to lay out whatever specific conventions or protocols that we need to have agreed to, to address the concerns raised by the Member. I know at this point we are doing our planning collectively, looking at June 2011 as the date up to which we could make substantive decisions, but after that we’re planning, recognizing that we’ll be moving into an election year. As a Cabinet, we’ve picked that particular date as a target for us that we’re working back from, recognizing that we’re going to be into a whole different mode after the last sitting of this Legislature before the election. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of ITI in terms of our recent meetings down in Vancouver and more particularly to the media people that were interested in the Northwest Territories such as the German newspaper and the Chinese television people there. They talked about the Northwest Territories and particularly important to the media person from Germany in terms of the tourism. I want to ask the Minister, in terms of the feedback that we received that was very positive from the media outlet in terms of promoting a place to visit, the Northwest Territories, is the Minister taking this type of feedback from the media outlet to track visitors from European or Asian countries, in terms of strengthening our territorial parks? The German newspaper did talk about, you know, is there a road and when are you going to build a road -- Mackenzie Valley Highway -- to get into the valley here? Is the Minister going to be looking at a type of new strategy in terms of how do we attract visitors from Germany or the Asian countries?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister responsible for Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bob McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the benefit of Canada’s Northern House is our interaction with national and international media. Certainly the interview we did with the German reporter gave us a lot of insight as to what the German people would find of interest in visiting the Northwest Territories, understanding that there are a lot of German tourists already visiting the Northwest Territories. Basically I think we understand that Yukon has direct flights from Germany to Whitehorse and so they get a lot of German tourists in that fashion. So I think that is an area that we are, and have been, investigating and we do have a person that is working on our behalf in Europe to promote tourism to the Europeans, because that’s a very important sector. I believe that, as a reporter said, if we can get the Germans that are in Whitehorse, drive to Yellowknife, then fly back to Germany would be a tremendous attraction. So, certainly, we want to examine that possibility.
I was particularly interested with respect to this reporter when he was doing the interview with us talking about the unknown Sahtu region. The German people are very avid hikers. He talked about the hiking that could be done in the Northwest Territories. He was very interested in how to get into the Sahtu. He talked about the Mackenzie Valley Highway. In terms of that type of interest out there and attracting European visitors, would the Minister, with respect to all the feedback we’ve received regarding the Northwest Territories, take this to look at a strategy that will attract infrastructure and facilities in the regions that maybe we could have more visitors?
We recognize that the Sahtu, the proposed CANOL Park, and the roads to Mile 222 are very spectacular. I think if we can work it out so that the German tourists who come off the plane and jump into RVs and drive down the road that we can find a way to get them to stop close to the NWT border and come into the Territories to do a hike,. I think if we can establish that type of product it would be very successful.
One comment I heard at the Northern House was they hope they can come to Yellowknife, jump on a plane, and visit a diamond mine. It really intrigues them, these diamond mines. That was one comment. We’re getting that type of interest at Northern House. I want to ask the Minister with respect to promoting the Sahtu that it would be nice to have these German people hike the CANOL Trail, jump in a boat, go up the Bear River to visit the birthplace of ice hockey in Canada here, as we promoted it. It took a lot and had a lot of interest from the southern papers there in terms of this claim to fame here. I want to ask the Minister to see how much promotional awareness we have started over there to get this done in Northern House in terms of working with the people in this House here and the community of Deline.
We want to develop all of those tourism opportunities. Anything that will attract people to the Northwest Territories I think is very important. The amount of interest that was generated with regard to promoting Deline as the birthplace of hockey, there was a lot of interest in it and I think that will probably have reaction to it. I guess we’ll see what kind of media exposure we’ll get. I expect we’ll get some articles about it and I think that you’ll have to be prepared to defend that claim.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I’m prepared to lace up with the Minister of ITI and defend this claim to fame in terms of the birthplace of ice hockey in Canada. I want to ask the Minister in terms of all the good publicity we have and now with the Olympics that are going to start, I think it’s going to somewhat scale back and the focus is going to be on the athletes in that once we finish this whole event that’s happening in Vancouver we’ll be sitting down and looking at a bigger picture strategy in terms of how to go forward and continuing on the good work that this department has done on promoting the Northwest Territories. How do we go forward in bringing people into the Northwest Territories? Will we have a bigger strategy?
We are close to completing our Tourism 2010 Plan and we will be taking all the information we hear or are hearing from Canada’s Northern House and we are working with NWT Tourism to develop a 2015 tourism plan. Using that approach we will endeavour to take all these opportunities into account. Also, as the Member recognized yesterday, we were getting a lot of interest from the international media to come up and find out more about the Northwest Territories so that they can promote it even further.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to use my reply to the opening address to talk about the Deh Cho Bridge. The reason why it is important to talk about this today is that the people of the Northwest Territories have a right and need to know and understand what is happening with the Deh Cho Bridge Project because of its potential far-reaching impacts on the financial well-being of our Territory.
Looking at the history of this project, the enabling legislation called the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation Act was passed in the 14th Assembly. At that time the legislation contemplated a $50 million bridge with a $6 per tonne toll that would finance the cost of the bridge. When the cost of the bridge more than tripled, the business case and cost-benefit analysis changed radically. In spite of this, because legislation passed several years earlier allowed it, the GNWT was able to proceed.
Amid much debate about the need for the bridge, whether it was a priority in the investment opportunities and demands for much needed capital infrastructure, the project was still pushed ahead. If anyone thinks that I did not question the advisability about proceeding with the bridge at every turn, this is just some of the Hansard of the questions and statements that I made in this House.
Our financial commitment started off in the form of loan guarantees. The first being for $3 million. We were told that would be the limit. Then it extended to $6 million, then to around $9 million. All the while Members were assured that this was the extent of the GNWT’s liability and the project would never proceed unless the federal government came to the table with significant financial contribution and underwriting.
All through this process the normal scrutiny of public transparency was blurred by the public-private partnership model which put the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation out front as the private partner, allowing the GNWT to avoid fulsome disclosure of the dealings surrounding the bridge in the name of corporate proprietary privacy.
Some would ask why would we have the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation acting as both the management teams and the proponents of this project. It was a way to keep the debt of the project off the books of the Government of the Northwest Territories, who at the time had a borrowing limit of $300 million. We have to be very clear about that. This was an attempt to build public infrastructure for public use while keeping that debt away from our balance sheet.
The argument was made for economic benefits that would flow to the community of Fort Providence from the construction, maintenance and management of the bridge. But as the proponent, the corporation had to have an equity stake in the project, equity which they had difficulty ever pulling together and at the 11th hour, even saw the project’s general contractor, ATCON, coming to the table to take advantage of the portion of the equity position in the bridge that they were about to build. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, how ATCON’s equity participation was going to benefit the people of Fort Providence or the Northwest Territories.
Now, there is some doubt as to whether every Member of Cabinet fully and wholeheartedly supported proceeding. That three days, Mr. Speaker, before the last territorial election, when the ability of Cabinet Ministers and outgoing Premier should have passed the point of making substantive decisions affecting the Territories, the Concession Agreement was signed.
Mr. Speaker, it took many months for the Concession Agreement to be shared with Members of the Legislative Assembly and only came out after literally hours of questioning on the floor of the House in attempt to get an idea of the GNWT’s liability associated with this major piece of capital infrastructure, larger than anything the GNWT had ever undertaken. A project, although financed through the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, was approved on the basis of a 100 percent guarantee of this territorial government. The GNWT went into this knowing full well that if anything went wrong, our government would be on the hook for the full amount of a loan. Mr. Speaker, this, in spite of my questions to Premier Roland dated February 20, 2008, in which -- and I quote from unedited Hansard, February 18, 2008 -- I had asked about the liability to the government. The Premier answered, “We are not guaranteeing the large loan. We have only guaranteed the $9 million.” The naysayers, as we were dubbed, were trying to ask questions we thought were responsible in the interest of holding the government accountable. That is our job, after all. We are often scoffed at and told, don’t worry. In spite of the many red flags along the way, we had no opportunity to intervene, just told to trust.
I remember being in the sound rooms at CBC Radio on a panel including the project manager, while he waved his arms in exasperation as I asked what I thought were reasonable questions. In spite of pressing demands on the time and budgets of the Department of Transportation for much needed infrastructure and maintenance across the North, very much energy and money from within the department has been expended on the bridge project. The total amount of that time and resources has never fully been disclosed, articulated or accounted for.
Mr. Speaker, who wanted the Deh Cho Bridge, you may wonder. No one that I know personally, except for some local contractors, understandably, who were able to secure some of the work on a project primarily dominated by southern services. The GNWT proceeded without a clear message of support from the constituents of the Northwest Territories. I was told, don’t worry, the bridge will be paid for. Everyone north of the Mackenzie River crossing and freight coming to Hay River won’t be affected by any bridge toll. Federal employees would lose their isolated post allowance. Yellowknife and points north consumers would shoulder the higher cost of getting goods into their communities and the truck hauling, the diamond mines would pay. We thought, they thought a small way to catch your benefit from mining interests in the absence of royalties. It was all good. The project started out under some of the highest commodity prices in history and still in a time of heated economic activity, thus the high cost.
The Bridge Corporation or not, public private partnership or not, let’s call this what it was. It was a piece of public infrastructure financed in advance by a public government. The shell of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation was only a means, as I said before, of a way to keep the project off the books with the GNWT so that we can stay within our federally legislated borrowing limit. There is probably a good reason why we have a borrowing limit. The inception and management of this project is the perfect point in case.
Strange how a project sold as having a fixed design, a fixed contract and a fixed price has recently gone through a major design revision, a change of general contractor and -- I’m coming to the price part -- just two weeks ago we were told in this House that the project was still on budget, if somewhat behind schedule.
So why are we talking about the Deh Cho Bridge today? The bridge is half built. The original general contractor of the project is gone. The management team for the bridge is now being handled in house because the lender is, understandably, getting nervous. We are way past the point of no return. The government is going to come to the people of the Northwest Territories, through us, for approval of an additional $15 million of public funds. The sensitive negotiations that the Minister spoke of yesterday are not yet concluded. So who knows what other surprises await us in the future.
We are told, don’t worry. It will be recaptured by the toll. Don’t forget that we are still also on the hook for the administration and operation of the toll collection for the next 35 years, probably more than $4 million per year and indexed. As to recovering all of this from the toll, the business case for the tolls revenue was really suspect, even before the recession and before the potential for an alternative to diesel-generated power existed for the diamond mines.
Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that there were more pressing needs for our government’s attention and resources than a bridge at Fort Providence.
On a personal note, I have probably used the ferry and the ice bridge more times than anyone in this room. I thought that, except for a brief interruption in the spring, it was a system that worked for me well. But somebody wanted to leave this Territory a legacy. We have been left with a legacy all right. I don’t think we have even begun to see the end of it yet. We have been sold a bill of goods so many times already on this project that don’t worry, trust us, this is the limit of our involvement, just isn’t believable anymore.
So what options do we have going forward? Why do I think it is important for people to understand clearly where we are at? Yesterday in the House I said that the costs and mismanagement of this project has the potential of being the biggest thing that has ever happened to this government. This is why we have fiscal forecast scenarios that have been prepared. Option one would approve the $15 million appropriation for the bridge. This option includes a few other assumptions going forward, keeping us from crashing into the debt wall, but still isn’t too pretty for the interests of other capital projects and spending in the next few years. The other options aren’t options at all, because they see us taking the bridge debt onto our books and taking this project over and operating it for what it really is: a government project. The reason why those two options aren’t options at all is because the government would either be over the debt limit or essentially bankrupt.
Mr. Speaker, I can’t predict what Ottawa will have to say about that. I was here in the 13th Assembly when previous governments had racked up $150 million debt and then enacted the Deficit Elimination Act for the next Assembly. The first thing the 13th Assembly had to do was roll back costs and spending, including the rollback of all the public service salaries by 6 percent across the board and make deep spending cuts to balance future years’ budgets.
Some would ask, why not just mothball the project and pick it up again in the future in better economic times? The problem with that idea is that apparently the pillars would have to be removed. That would cost more than it cost to put them there in the first place. Terminating the lending agreement that we are backstopping would also cost about $50 million in interest and penalties. That idea of stopping the bridge at this juncture is probably a non-starter. But just in case…
…(inaudible)…
Point of Privilege
Mr. Speaker, we have an understanding that we have confidential briefings with committee. We share information. It should be respected. The Member is clearly aware that there are processes and negotiations underway. This information was shared last night, yesterday morning and Tuesday night. My point of privilege is that by disclosing the specifics, the scenarios and all the various things that we are trying to talk about as we try to resolve this issue are bringing forward into a public forum, from a confidential forum, information that was agreed to be kept confidential until we concluded our arrangements. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. I am going to allow a little debate on this point of privilege. To the point of privilege. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Information was shared with committee and I did speak to the House yesterday and indicated to them that I felt that the information that had been shared really belongs to the public, because we expect feedback from our constituents on how we proceed and how we go forward with this. I think that I am just trying to explain that one of the options that people out there may think is available to us is not available to us and I did not use a specific amount. I talked about a ballpark amount and I, Mr. Speaker, believe that in representing the interest of the public to know what is before us, that it was acceptable to use this number. Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the point of privilege. The honourable Member for Deh Cho, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also want to say a few words on the point of privilege. Mr. Speaker, while we have an obligation to provide Members with details, with explanations, with discussion of accountability, we also have an expectation for the Members of this House to act reasonably. Mr. Speaker, the Member has disclosed information that was provided to committee in confidence and I would submit that disclosing this confidential information constitutes a breach of privilege. I would also submit that this disclosure is a violation of the principles of consensus government that we use in this forum for the dignity of this House. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the point of privilege. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Speaker, this issue is definitely in the public domain. There was a press release put out by the Minister this morning. The comments from my colleague Mrs. Groenewegen were about the situation that we had to deal with in the 13th Assembly and that reality is real. The issue of having a major deficit in this government has a major implication on all programs going forward. The press release clearly stipulates that this bridge is not going to cost us $165 million. It’s going to cost us $181 million and we don’t really know what the final price really is. Mr. Speaker, I think the question on privilege is information that has been revealed or released where someone else has the documentation.
In regards to the Member’s comments talking about what happened in the 13th Assembly, that scenario is real. Where we are going with this particular project and other projects going forward puts us all at risk in this House. We have an obligation as Members of this House to protect the public purse, not to scandalize the system, not to lose money, not to put us into a situation where we go into the next election and have the next people coming in having to deal with the mess that we are going to have to clean up.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that by putting out a press release this morning, this information is out there. It’s $181 million; the public now knows. It’s in the public domain and there’s nothing to hide here. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the point of privilege. The honourable Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to refer as well to some principles, building principles, that were approved by Caucus, Caucus at Blatchford Lake and released to the public where we talk about effective communication as a double-edged sword. For consensus government to work, all Members must agree to respect the confidentiality of information before it is properly made public. Similarly, Members should acknowledge the fact that information was shared in confidence once it has been released.
Mr. Speaker, the point is, properly made public, we’re talking about a lot of other information other than the $15 million and the concern is that the Members know there are sensitive negotiations underway and this type of discussion does nothing to aid that process and, in fact, brings confidential information into the House before it can properly be made public. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the point of privilege. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I remind this House it wasn’t that long ago we were having serious discussions about leaking of information, committee confidence and whatnot. I don’t think the information told today is necessarily a detriment to the project, but it still stands for the principles of frustration that were caused earlier. Information received is still being learned and understood. So perhaps laying it before the House was an ill choice at this time. Is it reasonable? I believe the public should be fully apprised of the information that will come forward, but I certainly hope that that will be in a timely way when there is a decision and a direction to weigh the pros and the cons of the project.
Mr. Speaker, I will just remind the frustration of this House... I will stress the witch hunt that was back here not that long ago about information leaking out of committee rooms and quick fingers were out there to point and how people were willing to frustrate the process. Yet, here we see slippage of it again. So, Mr. Speaker, I think today is another example of where consensus government isn’t working, yet it’s supposed to be the principles of how we share and work together. I don’t think stating a ballpark number or an actual number does anything to our process but destroy it. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the point of privilege. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just for the benefit of the public out there, I think it’s important to know we have a very unique system of government. It’s a system where everybody in the House has access to information in a way that’s unthinkable in other southern parliamentary jurisdictions. This is a Legislature where all the Members have a preview of the entire budget, the entire capital project budgets, confidential briefings on negotiations and everything. I think that’s a good thing. I think that’s what we want to keep. But in order for that to work we have to follow some rules. The rules are confidential briefings and stay confidential until it’s made properly public. The public needs to know that all that information does come out into the public and I am sure we will continue to have a full debate on the Deh Cho Bridge Project, but it’s important to know we have rules in this House and those rules have to be followed. If those rules have been breached, then that is breach of parliamentary privilege. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. To the point of privilege. The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bob McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is a very critical point to the operations of consensus government. Many times we hear that everybody wants information, as much information as possible. In order to function properly, we have to feel confident when we share confidential information that it will stay confidential. I don’t think we want to allow ourselves to get into a situation where we can pick and choose what is confidential or not and that you can just use it for your own purposes. I think that if we start operating that way, then everybody will start picking and choosing whatever they want to say. On sensitive information that is confidential that can affect negotiations or discussions, we have to make a commitment to keep that principle and honour it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker’s Ruling
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the point of privilege. Hearing no further comments on the point of privilege, colleagues, I have heard a lot of discussion on this particular topic in the House. However, not having heard the specific information that I could tell was not released before, I will take this point of privilege under advisement and refer to Hansard. However, I will allow the Member to continue with her reply to opening address with the caution of knowing the rules about disclosing confidential information. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will respect whatever that ruling is. I don’t suppose I can retract the number now. It’s already out there, but, Mr. Speaker, it has been very, very frustrating as a Member of this Assembly to try to get information about this project.
I just provided a quote from Hansard. When we got elected as the 16th Assembly, I came in here and I asked specific question after specific question of the Premier about if any contracts, any agreements, any concession agreements, anything had been signed by this government and I was repeatedly told that nothing had been signed. Then I asked about the liability of this government and I was told we weren’t guaranteeing the big loan, as I just quoted from Hansard, Mr. Speaker.
So I just believe that the public has a right to know what we’re up against here. I mean, two weeks ago we heard that this project was on budget. Today the Minister, and I do thank him for being forthcoming with the press release, the press release says that in fact Cabinet’s going to be coming back to the Regular Members and asking our support for another $15 million for this bridge. I just want the public to know that we are in a very unenviable situation right now. It is not a nice feeling to be in a situation where we have a project that’s half built, that we asked questions about all along, that we had concerns about, that the information was not fulsome coming back to the Members on this side of the House. I do not think that is... I think that’s probably an understatement.
I will continue with my statement and hopefully nothing else in it will offend the Members in the House. I’m not going to be a part of... I want to be respectful of the committee process and the unique ability of the consensus government to share things, but I don’t want to be a part of covering up things from the public. Already some people in the public have said – We get criticized if we know things and don’t say them. They say, oh, you knew about that all along and you didn’t do anything? You didn’t say anything? And we get almost tarred with some kind of sense in the public that we were conspiring to cover something up. So I don’t know, I guess the line between respecting the committee process, but I did give the Minister notice yesterday I was going to talk about this.
Anyway, let me continue on with my text. Just in case, in the matter of the loan guarantee, anyone thinks that the GNWT is in the driver’s seat on these fiscal forecast scenarios, in fact the lender is in the driver’s seat on this and has the ability to call the loan just because of almost, well, the reasons that we’ve talked about, the ones that are already on the table, the changes and the revisions to the design, the management, the cost. These are all substantive changes to this project. So we may think that we are, and we are trying to, and I’m coming to the fact of what the Minister is trying to do. In that instance we would still be on the hook for the entire loan thus soon putting us over the debt limit or thrusting us into the exercise of scrambling to see what we could sell, how we could cut our capital budget, or where else we could make cuts in order to get ourselves under that $500 million debt limit.
The other thing about these scenarios is that they do not account for anything unforeseen. We can make assumptions and we can say, well, if this happened or that happened, but we don’t have a comprehensive list of unforeseen things. So for our government to operate in a way that financially puts us that close to our borrowing limit of $500 million, well, I guess the public will have to decide if that is a good idea, because the impacts of this will be felt by everyone.
That is why, in the interest of public and transparent government, the people of the Northwest Territories have the right to fully be aware of how this could impact us all.
The Finance and Transportation Ministers along with their staff are trying to make the best of a very difficult situation that we find ourselves in. I believe they, like us, want to mitigate any negative impact as a result of this recent turn of events. But let’s not forget that at least three of them across the floor of the House were at the table when the agreement was signed that got us into the mess that we are in today.
To those who have raised concerns about this project at every juncture along the way and to those who were not around, and some on this side of the table, too. Okay, there’s some finger pointing going on here. To those poor folks who were not even around from the inception of this debacle, there has been a collective, sickening feeling as we have contemplated our options. I think that would characterize the last few days. So although we are grappling with potentially very bad news, I think that the people of the NWT have a right to know and hear and comment to us on the situation. We cannot sit here in silence while we know the behind-the-scenes truth of the potential magnitude of the challenge that could be before us.
The failure of our government to manage this scenario through to the best outcome possible would impact major projects in the future such as the Taltson hydro expansion, the Mackenzie Valley Highway, and literally any other major project that the GNWT has the potential to be involved in. Transparency in public government is of the utmost importance. Trying to cover something like this from public scrutiny and input in spite of sensitive negotiations is not advisable. That’s why I’ve taken the opportunity today.
It would seem to me that under normal circumstances there would be some fallout for those who have propelled us into this mess. But in the interest of working together to stabilize the situation, that is probably a discussion better left to a future time.
On a personal note, I was speaking to my son Jeffery on the phone last night, who, as you know, has a very keen interest in politics. It was very stressful to get involved in this debate. I said that I could say nothing about it. Who could fault me and who could criticize me if I just sat on my hands today and said nothing? I think it’s very well known by people that I’m not planning to run again. I could say let the next government worry about it. I said, I don’t even know why I care so much. And he said, Mom, you care so much because this is not right. We’ve got ourselves into a situation that is not right for the people that we represent.
Sometimes leadership isn’t about doing what’s popular, but it is about doing what’s right. Your representatives, the MLAs of this Assembly, are about to be called upon to approve another $15 million for the Deh Cho Bridge and to try and manage our way through this difficult situation with our colleagues in the Cabinet. There is a right way to go and we would like to take that path.
