I had a chance to look over a bit more Hansard here. I want to go back to this. You know, these things just don’t go away just because we decide to sweep them under the carpet.
The concession agreement was signed on September 28. We found out November 27 — two months later. Now, the Premier said we didn’t ask the right question. We didn’t say, “Did you sign the concession agreement in the last government?” We weren’t that direct.
Here’s a quote from Hansard, again on October 19. This is Mr. Ramsay: “Are we going to be able to see the concession agreement? Are we going to be able to see the contracts that have been signed? What has been signed?” He says: “What has been signed?”
This is a month before we found out the concession agreement was signed. Mr. Roland comes back: “I’m going to commit to you and Members of this Assembly to share the information that is necessary to make sure we make good decisions for the residents of the Northwest Territories.”
I have to ask again: on October 19, when the Premier — whether he was assigned portfolios or not; I don’t care. He was in the last cabinet. He must have known that the concession agreement had been signed. When he was asked that very direct question — “What has been signed?” — why did he not offer up to this government that the concession agreement had already been signed, significantly committing this government to all the liability we’re now talking about?
The Member again quotes the Hansard from October 19, the first day we had oral questions in the 16th Legislative Assembly. Most of us around the table — at least from this side of the House, because I had not assigned portfolios — were expecting a light day as was past practice of new governments. But I ended up taking questions from across the delivery of programs and services by the Government of the Northwest Territories.
As the Member has quoted, I committed to providing the necessary information that is now in the hands of Members. Do we want to relive the past? I committed to stuff. I provided that. What more does the Member want from myself? I should be careful asking that question. I have ideas, and I think I know where this is going. But the fact is, what I’ve committed to, I’ve delivered.
I’m interested to know what the Premier thinks I’m looking for. He was only elected as the Premier a short few months ago, and I was certainly on the record in telling him that I did support him. I still support him. I don’t see a lot of other options sitting over there for Premier. I’d like to work with him. I’m being honest here. I’d like to work with him.
But the fact of the matter is that we need transparency. And I believe the Premier…. You know, as I said, you can’t sweep these things under the carpet. I believe the Premier knew full well what we were looking for that day, and he didn’t have the guts to tell us the concession agreement had been signed.
Did the Premier understand what we were getting at that day? That’s what I’d like to ask.
I guess I’ll have to apologize. No, I didn’t get the gist of what was happening. I was basking in the glow of just being named the tenth Premier of the Northwest Territories. I wasn’t expecting any questions that would require a lot of background detail. In fact, I stood here — and I didn’t have the updated notes from all the departments — and responded to all the questions that were put before me. I think we used up almost a whole question period, in fact.
I had Members saying good job for not being given an opportunity to know where Members were coming from or to get the background. I responded to questions with information that I had off the top of my head as to where things were, still in, I guess, the limelight of being named Premier of the Northwest Territories.
So for the record, I did not look at the fact that “Okay, they’re looking for what the previous government had signed off days before the election.” No, I didn't. It’s very clear now, as has been pointed out, that it is a very big concern.
I've tried to state, for the record, the information — the critical information that we needed as the Legislative Assembly, even this Assembly — was out there in the public, because questions had been asked about that of the previous government.
Once I knew exactly what Members wanted, I committed to it, and I've delivered upon it. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, two motions were passed in the 15th Assembly. I believe they were unanimously passed by the Regular Members of this House.
The Premier had to have known that there were concerns on this side of the House with the Deh Cho Bridge project. It has been widely publicized that there were questions and concerns.
The fact that he'd had a chance to think, for I don't know how many months, he might be the Premier, and with headlines written for months in advance that he was going to be the Premier, I can't help it if he didn't assign that cabinet portfolio. But that was his choice.
Let’s go on to another serious beef. Let’s go on to December 31st. December 31st was the date by which the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation had to comply with certain things that needed to be done. The equity and different pieces of their side of the commitment had to be put in place by December 31st.
Somebody made a decision to extend that deadline to January 31st. Who made that decision? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the deadline of December 31st was in place. The loan guarantee was put in place, with our government backstopping that loan guarantee with TD Bank — TD Securities, to be correct.
They had a 30-day provision before calling that loan. The concession agreement, as I was informed by department officials, also had a 30-day provision built into it. That's what we were waiting for, to see if the bridge corporation would come up with the equity and come up with a lending agreement and all of the pieces that needed to be put in place for this to proceed.
Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Just to confirm: even in light of the fact that the Premier knew how many concerns there were about this process and this project, a significant deadline of December 31st came and went. And a decision was made on that side of the House to extend that deadline to January 31st without any consultation or awareness on this side of the House.
Again, after the fact, we got a phone call. After January 31st had passed, we get a phone call. We were told that shareholders have changed and that the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation has met their requirements.
Somebody made a decision in spite of…. There was an opportunity on December 31st to change the course of this project, but the Premier made an extension to January 31st. Did he alone make that decision?
Mr. Speaker, once again, we have to be careful of what we say in this House.
For the record, I committed to Members that before we made a decision to extend, alter or change anything, as Members of the 16th Legislative Assembly, I would get hold of Members. I did that on two occasions, going to Members or making phone calls to Members, before the deadline. Not after the 31st. Before the deadline. So let’s get that correct.
