Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Mr. Nadli. We’ll move on to Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve listened with interest to all of these comments. I guess they call it a debate for a reason. I don’t know if this is a debate or not, but I’ll tell you this is a debatable investment, that’s for sure.
I feel conflicted. There are so many unknowns, so many needs, so little resources and we’re kind of jumping off the bridge here blind and hoping we’re going to find a parachute on the way down I think. I guess that’s the nature of taking risks. We take a leap of faith and you hope for the best.
But some of the concerns, Mr. Chairman, if I can summarize them, and I want to say as a returning Member there is an element of déjà vu on the Deh Cho Bridge on this because it was just a couple of million and a couple more million and a couple more million and pretty soon we were at $9 million and do we keep going or do we shut it down? Well, ultimately that decision was taken away from us and because we’d done the work, we were committed financially, psychologically, emotionally. People talk about infrastructure; it’s hard not to be supportive. Nation building, territory building, you hear these phrases, but I guess the issue is there’s a lot of things that we’d like in all of our regions, but we’ve got to pick and choose what the projects are that will go ahead.
The issue with this specific project that I have a concern with is the timing. We’re being asked for a supplementary appropriation so that this work can all be done in the next six weeks. I find it hard to believe that this money can be spent, expended and the work completed in the next six weeks.
On the flipside of that, the region is economically slow and this would provide activity. So every argument has a counter to it. So we spend another $2.5 million, Ottawa is talking about austerity measures, they’re talking about reductions all over the place and yet we hear from our representatives that go down to Ottawa, that Ottawa is committed to this project, that this is a pet project of the Prime Minister, that Minister Flaherty has made the commitment. We haven’t seen it on paper, but we understand that’s the case. Then it begs the question, well, why is our little government being asked to put another $2.5 million on the table, and then another $2.5 million on the geotechnical, on the due diligence, when the federal government has so many more resources. If this is really their idea, it’s not their idea, but I mean if there’s really all this support there for it.
So I think that there are pros and cons at every turn on this thing. One of the concerns I think is some of the foundational work, the cost-benefit analysis, the technology. We hear about the issues with Highway No. 7, with the Dempster Highway, with the melting of permafrost, with the enormous costs of maintaining and in some cases kind of restructuring the transportation infrastructure we already have that’s being affected by wear and tear and changing ground conditions.
So we just need to go into this with our eyes wide open here, folks. There are a lot of unanswered questions. The cost-benefit analysis for this piece of work, there’s the science. How are we going to build this road so that we’re not ending up with something like even we had between the Rae turnoff and Yellowknife here? My goodness, that’s a new highway, if you can call it a highway. It’s very sad driving on that road. It seems like we practically started repairing it the day we finished building it. If you think it’s a problem here building on rock and the Canadian Shield, wait until you get up there. Have we assessed what the ongoing maintenance cost is? We’re going to raise the expectation in the Beaufort-Delta and in Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk that these folks are going to have a serviceable road to travel back and forth on. We could have a pile of mush when we’re done. It’s a global changing in the weather. But, again, I guess that’s all part of the risk factors.
So there are good things to be said. There are questions to be answered. So we’re called upon to make a decision. I hope that the federal government stays true to their commitment that after we’ve financially committed to this project and continuing with this due diligence and putting this money out front, I certainly hope that the federal government doesn’t get any cold feet on this. I hope they stay with us on this.
I like the fact that it is a cost-shared project and that we’re not doing it on our own. There are some people who would say that this type of infrastructure is totally a federal responsibility, but if it favourably impacts our borrowing limit then some would say development is a good thing, we need more money for development, we need this kind of activity in all regions of the Northwest Territories to spur on economic development.
There are others on the converse that would say this government shouldn’t be getting into any more debt than the $500 million limit that we have right now. There are people who say we shouldn’t be mortgaging the future. That’s another argument you hear out there. I’m just trying to articulate some of the concerns.
In a perfect world if the road gets built and it is the beginning of the Mackenzie Valley Highway and we can afford to maintain it going forward… Every time we make a commitment like this, though, we also have to remember that it’s not just a one-time thing. It is the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of a piece of infrastructure like this. We’re not going to abandon it after we start it. It is the ongoing cost which we don’t really know much about at this point. Whatever we spend on this we won’t spend on something else and there are a lot of priorities out there in our communities on a much smaller scale, many of them, than this particular one.
However, on Friday afternoon when we met in committee I said I would support the $2.5 million and I will continue to support the $2.5 million today when we vote on this. It sort of sounds from what I’ve said leading up to this that I’m doing so with some trepidation about what the future of this project is. I do support development outside of the capital. We talked about the $2.3 million for Betty House and the $40 million office building going uptown. Where does it end in terms of the concentration of capital in Yellowknife here? This is an example of something outside of Yellowknife and I hope that the same consideration will be extended to other regions as we go forward and look for projects that we can support.
I will say today and put on the record we need something in the South Slave. We’ve got prospects, we’ve got promise of things that could create jobs and create economy for our people, but we need a fair and equitable distribution of the resources.
I’ve heard other people say road? What’s a road? I mean, we’re pretty fortunate in the South Slave, too, that we are all connected by roads. We do have a pretty good road infrastructure there and that’s something other parts of the Territories only dream of. But it will come and this will be one step towards it.
I will support the expenditures contained in the supplementary appropriation here for infrastructure, but a lot of it requires a leap of faith.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, I appreciate the Member’s support. If I could make an observation that I think all of us that have been here for at least the last Assembly and prior, but definitely the last Assembly, would consider ourselves somewhat battle hardened when it comes to the road followed for a major project. The ups and downs of things like the Deh Cho Bridge. Now we sit here, I would like to say we are not sadder but we are wiser. We know we have to invest this money up front to answer the very legitimate questions the Member has raised before we make any ongoing long-term commitment. I think that’s the thing that is different here. We are all going to be in the same room when that information is put on the table and we’ll be able to make an informed decision. At that point there will be some risk involved, but hopefully we will have enough information that we can make that determination.
If I can just quickly comment about the South Slave, I assure the Member’s concern. There are issues tied to energy and power that we have to sort out with potential mining ventures like Avalon and Tamerlane. We’re intent on trying to negotiate and come to some agreement that will allow those projects to have a chance. There are opportunities coming, but I appreciate the Member’s support.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. I believe Mr. Ramsay wants to comment as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to follow up on the Finance Minister’s comments and to Mrs. Groenewegen, I do appreciate her support. Looking at, I know some Members like to draw a comparison to the Deh Cho Bridge and I think the comparison is not something we can draw. I don’t think there are a lot of comparisons between the Deh Cho Bridge and the Tuk-Inuvik highway. On the Deh Cho Bridge it was always the federal government was going to come to the table and that was the premise for the Deh Cho Bridge all along. At the end of the day the federal government didn’t come to the table. In the Tuk-Inuvik highway we have the best possible partner we could get as a government. We have the federal government committing $150 million and they want to be our partner in building this vital piece of infrastructure in our territory. Like I said, we couldn’t ask for a better partner.
If you look at the infrastructure and the level of investment in this territory in the past five years through programs like Building Canada and CSIF, it was an unprecedented amount of federal dollars that flowed into this territory to build vital infrastructure across the territory. What better partner to have on a project than the federal government? We’re fortunate enough, I believe, to have that commitment by the federal government of $150 million to pursue the Tuk-Inuvik highway. I think there’s little comparison that can be drawn with the Deh Cho Bridge and I just wanted to put that out there.
On the other issues that Mrs. Groenewegen had on maintenance, we’ve done some early estimates and it was brought up at committee as well. It’s approximately $2 million a year. It’s based on maintenance costs on the Dempster Highway on a comparable distance of highway. Again, these things have to be vetted and they’ll be vetted through that geotechnical and environmental work that needs to be done.
I again think it’s early days but there’s little comparison that can be made to the Deh Cho Bridge aside from the magnitude of the investment in infrastructure in this territory. That’s the only comparison that you can make.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Last on my list for general comments I have Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to confirm that we are still on general comments.
That’s correct, Mr. Bromley. Seeing that there are no other general comments, does committee agree to go to detail?
Agreed.
I’d like the Members to turn to page 5 of the supplementary appropriation infrastructure handout. Supplementary Appropriation (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2011-2012, Department of Public Works and Services, operations expenditures, asset management, not previously authorized, $400,000.
Agreed.
Department total, not previously authorized, $400,000.
Agreed.
Department of Public Works and Services, capital investment expenditures, asset management, not previously authorized, negative $400,000.
Agreed.
Department total, Public Works and Services, capital investment expenditures, not previously authorized, negative $400,000.
Agreed.
Supplementary Appropriation (Infrastructure Expenditures) No. 3, 2011-2012, Department of Transportation, capital investment expenditures, airports, not previously authorized, $427,000.
Agreed.
Highways, not previously authorized, $2.5 million. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Probably all of the points that I’m about to mention have been expressed already, but I feel that I need to get on the record where I’m coming from with regard to this project. I expressed in my general comments that I have some concerns. I want to say at the outset I am supportive of this project. I think it is a project that is going to be, as has been mentioned, nation building, territory building, it is a good project. I have huge problems with the process and I have huge problems with the lack of concrete information that we have at our disposal in order to approve this expenditure and to basically the cost of the project as we go forward.
At the outset, Mrs. Groenewegen says that there are some people that feel this whole road is a federal responsibility. I’m one of them. I believe that it is the federal government’s responsibility to build new roads and it is then the territorial and provincial responsibility to maintain that road. I haven’t seen in my time here anything, I don’t think, if so, very little if anything, from the federal government that will support new road building in our territory. I really believe that it is the federal responsibility to do that.
In regard to the whole project, I am really, really nervous that we have no project costs. We are being asked to approve a specific amount of money here. We’re going to be asked to approve another $2.5 million, so we’re told, in next year’s capital budget. We’ve already approved that budget but we’ve been advised that they’re going to come back and ask for another $2.5 million to finish this geotechnical work in 2012-2013. So we’re already at $6 million by the time we get to the supp for 2012-2013. We’re already at $6 million for this project, but we don’t know what the end cost is. That really concerns me. Do we have any idea, any finite idea of the cost of the project? I don’t think so. I’ve heard the feds are going to give us $150 million. Initially we thought it was going to be $225 million then it went up to maybe $230 million, well then $260 million, maybe $283 million, and now I’m hearing a number of $300 million. If that’s the case and if the federal government says, well, we’re only going to give you $150 million, this government, this territory, our residents are now looking at paying $150 million for the Tuk-Inuvik Highway. Where’s the 75/25 split in that? My math doesn’t work that way. If that’s the case and the feds pull out at $150 million and the project costs us $300 million, that’s 50/50. I can’t get any guarantee; I can’t get any assurance from either Minister that tells me that we’re going to be able to have a 75/25 split. The fact that we don’t know the cost of the project is really disturbing to me.
The other thing in terms of the project in general is that we don’t know what kind of a project it’s going to be. Part of this money that we’re approving is going to go to determine whether or not it should be a P3. It might be a P3, we might finance it ourselves. There are a number of options out there. I haven’t been given any assurance as to what kind of method we’re going to use to finance this project.
Mrs. Groenewegen, I think, mentioned that it feels like a bridge project and I have to tell you, I’ve only had one term here but I was unfortunately intimately involved with the bridge project and the cost overruns and just with all the difficult decisions we had to make. I feel very much in the same position. The Minister suggested we should be hardened after the bridge experience. I have to say that I may be hardened but I’m also extremely gun shy. This project does not feel good. It doesn’t feel comfortable.
There are a couple of statements in our briefings and also today from the Minister that we’ve got to hit some timelines. We have to do this and we have to do that. We’re being pressured on a number of fronts, one in terms of time, apparently, and one in terms of the federal government. I don’t think we need to be pressured and I don’t think we should accept that pressure, because it’s rushing our decision on this project.
Somebody talked about dancing to the tune of the Prime Minister and I thought that was a pretty apt quote. I think that was Mr. Yakeleya and I have to agree with him. I think we are dancing to somebody else’s tune and I think it’s important that we dance to our own tune. There doesn’t seem to be a willingness, I guess, on the part of the government to exert our autonomy, to make a statement that no, this is not something we want to go to unless we really do want to go there. I feel like we’re not really making a valid decision.
I have a great deal of concern with the timing of this request. I have expressed before, I don’t understand why we as Members were not advised, we had no inkling of a $2.5 million request coming forward in this session. We approved a $1 million expense for the capital budget for 2012-13, and at that time there was, to my mind, no indication that we were going to be asked for more money. I didn’t get a valid explanation or I didn’t get a lengthy explanation that this project is in the works. This project is ramping up. We’re going to be having to make some decisions in the near future. We’re probably going to come back and ask you for some money and it will probably be a couple of million dollars. I don’t remember hearing that at all. I think if I had been aware of that in the fall and in December when we discussed the capital budget, I’d have a much different view of this request at this point right now.
Economic development has been mentioned a number of times and I appreciate that we are assisting a region that is struggling, that has no economic development, that needs the economic development, but it’s not the only region in our territory. I feel really strongly that we definitely need to assist this region but we don’t need to do it in a hurry. If the reason for doing this project and doing it in a such a hurry is economic development, well, then from my region, where’s a road through the Slave Geologic Province? Mining is struggling in our territory. It’s struggling in my community. A road through the Slave Geologic would have a huge impact on mining and exploration in the NWT, but that doesn’t seem to be there.
A couple of other things. There’s a lack of a risk assessment. That’s been mentioned and that is a concern for me. There’s the ongoing maintenance once the construction is done. There doesn’t seem to be information on what that’s going to cost us. This is building a road in basically new territory. There are not a lot of roads built in this kind of an environment throughout the world. We really don’t know what maintenance is going to cost us. There hasn’t been an adequate cost-benefit analysis, at least not a recent one. The one that we have been given to have a look at is a couple of years old. Those things absolutely concern me.
I think – and it’s been mentioned already, but I agree with it – that this project is going to take away from other projects that we may want, other elements of our budget, and it’s important for me to recognize that this expense, I think, is going to force us to leave some other things undone.
I see my time is up. I just want to see if I can get my last shot in here. I think I’m done. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I have more, I’ll come back on the list. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. We’re going to go to Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s gratifying to know that the Member supports the project; otherwise she could have some really tough questions. We’re caught on the horns of a dilemma here. The Member has rattled off a whole list of questions that have to be answered. We’re saying we need the money to answer those questions so we can make an informed decision. It is unfair, it would seem to me, to dam the project, but let’s not put the information on the table so that we can make the decision to see if, in fact, it is a viable project, we can afford it and it fits into all our other strategic goals.
Mr. Chair, I would hope the Member would give us that grace and that latitude to be able to answer the very legitimate questions that she’s raised. I will ask the Minister of Transportation if he has anything further to add in terms of the specifics. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m happy the Member supports the project. But listening to the questions she had, I believe I answered a number of them in the hours I spent with committee last week. I think I’ve mentioned the fact that maintenance on that 135 kilometres between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk, the estimate that we put out there is about $2 million a year. That was mentioned at committee. It was mentioned earlier today, and I’ll put that out there again for the Member.
She has, I guess, cast some negative aspersions about a project that we haven’t even gotten off the ground yet. All we’re asking for is the $2.5 million to do our due diligence, to do the work that’s going to answer the questions that she has today and she had last week at committee. We’re not asking Members to approve a $250 million project. That’s not the exercise we’re having here today. The exercise we’re having here today is to approve $2.5 million so that we can get the work done that’s going to answer the questions.
Rest assured, we will come back to Members with those answers. We will come back. Before we take any step forward, we’re going to come back to this House and we’re going to have that discussion with Members so that everybody is on the same page, so that we can support the effort to build the highway between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Moving on with the detail here, we have Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Repetition, they say, is good, so you will hear some repetition to my remarks. I did keep my remarks brief in general comments on purpose, so I will lay out some of my concerns.
I think there have been a lot of good points made and the fundamental one doesn’t seem to be getting through, and that is, of course, the process and the unrealistic timing that’s available at this very late stage of the game, six weeks today before the end of the fiscal year to mount this piece of work during what I suspect is the warmest winter on record and will present all kinds of challenges that would impede the already rushed, I’m sure, work to be done during this period for two and a half million bucks.
I do agree, as well, having had the experience of last term and listening to previous Members’ experience, the Minister will understand this on the Deh Cho Bridge project, that there are some disturbing parallels here. But I want to start by noting that that project was probably the biggest fundamental reason for causing us to manage ourselves into the debt crisis of today, which, of course, it’s all wrapped together for our reasons for running back and forth to Ottawa begging for an increased debt limit. Now there is some discussion on what we’re to do with that increased debt limit. I think that perspective is important to be had and it can’t be denied here.
My understanding is things were rushed into with the Deh Cho Bridge project and that’s how we got into that situation. In my brief experience, the Cabinet would continually bring to committee either a done deal or a deal that had to be done immediately or the costs would be greater. Of course, I think when we finally did sign on the dotted line, it was $150 million or $160 million. Now we’re at $192 million or something. As my colleague Mr. Beaulieu predicted, he is suggesting maybe $250 million by the time we’re done. We’ll see. Originally this project was estimated at $150 to $200 million. Most recently the estimate was $250 to $300 million.
I’m having a hard time hearing myself think here, Mr. Chair. In fact, in committee the Department of Transportation told us it was $2.5 million per kilometre, and if my rudimentary math is right, I believe it’s 141 kilometres: 140 times $2.5 million is something like $350 million. I think there is a lot to be said and done yet about what the cost of this project is, but we know it’s climbing with each bit of additional detail that we acquire.
I do appreciate what’s being proposed here is due diligence. We need to do that work. It’s being proposed that we start construction before we’re completing the due diligence, because we’re going to do as much work again next winter, which has been pointed out by one of my colleagues that that seems very odd. Mr. Bouchard, I believe. So I’d like to get more on the understanding there.
Another point, committee requested before Christmas a critical cost-benefit analysis on which to base our interest in this project and decision-making. This week we were finally provided with a very high level look at the economic effects of the project that was done a year and a half ago and it highlights potential net benefits from the road predicated upon the Mackenzie Gas Project going forward. We heard on the news yesterday that Imperial is looking for a three-year delay and even deciding whether or not they do the road there, so we know what to expect from that standpoint. Disturbingly it also points to a lot of lost jobs and GDP to the territorial government based on lost opportunities because, of course, this highway is essentially a major subsidy to the oil and gas industry and it allows them to forgo using local services and so on and allows them to use their own services brought up from wherever. So this study did highlight that understanding.
Under our currently strapped fiscal dilemma, we have many competing and critical needs for on-the-ground infrastructure. As we jump at this new and very costly project with immature plans to start construction next fall before even our due diligence is done apparently, these other priorities get eclipsed and their potential recedes as the few existing resources get committed in the future. This is exactly what happened with the Deh Cho Bridge project and we will never recover from that. I think of things like the Stanton Territorial Hospital, community energy systems, other infrastructure projects that can help with the cost of living in our communities. These sorts of things come to mind here.
We hear that this project is needed because the area is economically depressed and people need jobs. I agree that this region, which has been characterized by a boom and bust economy for a long time now solely based on the oil and gas industry, is a need of economic development and jobs. But here again we propose a project which provides flash in the pan jobs as I call them, and rather than doing the hard work of determining what is the real beneficial development that will actually contribute to lasting jobs, meaningful jobs that support a local economy, a strong social fabric and a healthy environment, I think we cannot continue to jump at anything because an area needs economic development.
I recognize that this area is economically depressed right now. I would love to find a way to spend these dollars in a meaningful way rather than jumping at anything that happens to be by. Fundamentally though, it needs a sound basis of planning to do that.
Again, this reflects this pattern that I am seeing that is disturbing and, again, the parallel with the bridge project. We are falling into this pattern at jumping at something rather than doing this hard work to come up with a good and lasting development. Again, I think we need that planning. This is exactly how we got into the trouble with our current debt crisis, how we finessed ourselves into getting this serious debt and forgoing critical infrastructure opportunities. The costs of forgoing such opportunities are, again, permanent and we will likely never recover those costs.
The concern about being a rush job has been posed and clearly this has become a rush job. We just heard about this and we are told this year $2.5 million and another supplemental budget already expected for next fiscal year, yet there are only six weeks to get this work done. It is unlikely that it will get done, I would venture to forecast, because of some the logistic problems. The work will accrue, of course, not to the whole region and so on. As I understand it, it will go to one company and there will be a few jobs, but I suspect most of these dollars will go to the logistical costs. That is where the costs are in this particular work: the equipment and so on.
I think better decisions and benefits can come with solid planning, and a little bit more on that later. But I see my time is up. I am happy to continue comments later, Mr. Chairman, if there are others in line.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that Mr. Minister Abernethy be allowed to make a motion.
Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding Rule 6(1), I move a motion that Committee of the Whole continues sitting beyond the hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing and concluding consideration of Tabled Document 2-17(2), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2011-2012. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
---Carried
We will continue with general comments. Sorry; details. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened to the concerns by Mr. Bromley. It is very similar to the concerns of his colleague Ms. Bisaro. The one thing that strikes me is that if we were sitting in Yellowknife and it had no road south and we were debating the merits and benefit of a road connection, we would be having an entirely different debate or the debate would be ones where we would be playing different roles. So I think we have to keep in mind that there are all of these benefits that are going to come when you build roads. Diefenbaker had it right on the money: roads to resources to open up country. We have to make the first step. We will come back with the information. We will address the questions so that we can make an informed decision. We have committed to do that. It is critical that we, as a Legislature, allow this project to have the latitude to be able to do the work to find out if it proceeds at all. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley, do you have anything to conclude?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that in the scenario the Minister paints, if Yellowknife did not have a road, undoubtedly this road would not be happening in that scenario and under these conditions, and I agree with that. That is the oversight and accountability that we are trying to bring from this side of the House. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to respond to Mr. Bromley’s comments. Again, I respect Mr. Bromley’s position. I don’t agree with everything and his arguments on why he should not support the $2.5 million, but the way I look at it, and again people are trying to make parallels with the Deh Cho Bridge and it’s just not an accurate depiction of this project because we have a partner that’s putting in $150 million into this project and that’s the federal government. We didn’t have that with the Deh Cho Bridge project.
Again, I think this project is developing our territory from a number of perspectives. The federal government being our partner, they’re interested in sovereignty. Arctic sovereignty has been a big issue. That’s at the forefront of the decision to support the construction of the highway, social development of the region and also economic development. Those real jobs that Mr. Bromley talks about, they are going to be born out of resource extraction of some type. In the Beaufort-Delta, oil and gas development, both onshore and offshore, that’s where the real jobs are and that’s where the real development in that region of our territory is going to take place and that’s how it’s going to happen. This road is just a part. It will make up the foundation of the potential economic prosperity of the Beaufort-Delta.
So, again, I respect Mr. Bromley’s thoughts, but I tend to disagree with him. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Continuing with detail. We have Ms. Bisaro.
We’ve still got time?
Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to respond to some of the comments that I didn’t get a chance to talk to earlier and at the outset.
I want to state that I take offense to the Minister of Finance’s remarks that suggest that I am biased. I certainly am not. I am required to hold this government accountable and that’s what I’m doing. I don’t feel that I am opposing or supporting any particular project except that it is in the best interests of the people of the Northwest Territories and I would ask that the Minister reconsider his statement.
It is important that the government be opposed if, it’s my belief, we’re not doing things in the right way, and that’s what I’m doing. There are times when we have to agree to disagree and that’s what you guys are doing, but I have yet to hear what the Minister mentioned the other day that’s going to give me comfort relative to the process and the timing questions.
I still don’t understand why we had no knowledge that this information or this request was coming forward several months ago. I believe firmly that there should have been some indication that this was where the project was going. I want to say that I appreciate that due diligence is required for this project and I think I would be even more upset if that wasn’t what was being asked for.
But again, my main concern is that we are being asked to approve something in very short order. We’re being asked to approve something, which in my mind is being thrust upon us and where we don’t have adequate information to make a reasoned decision and what I consider an adequate or a positive decision. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course, if the Member has taken offense by any of my comments, my intent was not to offend her. I acknowledge the fact that I appreciate her support and she does ask tough questions. I mean, there’s no doubt about it, she’s good at it. So we owe her the response that she’s asked for and which is what we’re asking for. So I meant no offense to the Member. Whatever comment specifically offended her, I’d be happy to withdraw those. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the Minister for his comments. I think he probably well knows what comment it was that got me a little excited.
Again, I have to state that one of the things that I’d thought of the other day when we were in committee, we’ve received a huge amount of information from the Minister of Transportation during briefings and there’s been an awful lot of questions asked and the same questions were asked here today. But I’ve found the Minister saying the same thing over and over and over in an effort to convince me without providing me with new information. Without adequately answering my questions is not convincing me and giving me comfort and that’s where I’m at.
So I accept the Minister’s offer to withdraw his remarks that I am biased. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the Members that feel we’re rushing into this, this project was initiated by the leadership in the Beaufort-Delta, by the Inuvialuit, the community of Tuktoyaktuk and the Town of Inuvik. The PDR work was done and it was initiated by the region. It was a regional effort to get the PDR work. That work was done by the communities that are up there. If we have a $150 million commitment from the federal government and it’s a priority of the government to build the highway between Tuk and Inuvik, what do Members want us to do when we have opportunity? Do they want us to sit on our hands and not take that opportunity, or do they want us to do something and move things forward?
This is an effort to make progress, to move forward, to get the work done so construction can start on the highway between Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk this coming winter. That’s where we’re at and that’s what we’re asking Members to support.
To Ms. Bisaro’s comment about answering questions, I’d be more than happy to answer any questions and we can go back and forth. Ask me a question and I’ll answer it and then we can get that done. Let’s get it done. I want you to have the comfort that I have answered every question that you have so that we can move forward. Let’s do that. This is the forum we can do that in, let’s do that. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we’re back to the horns of a dilemma where we’re being asked to answer questions that we can only answer once we’ve done the work. The detailed questions about permafrost, geotechnical work. The cost-benefit analysis has not been completed and you have our full commitment. We the government and the Minister have disclosed all of the information we have available and trying to make the case to justify getting the funds to in fact do the work to answer those very questions that the Member has raised so vigorously in the House here. Thank you.
