Debates of February 6, 2008 (day 1)

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to wade in on the bridge again today. I have questions.

How can a piece of legislation passed two Assemblies ago, which envisioned a self-financing $50 million capital project, possibly still be a go — with a green light — today in the 16th Assembly, having more than tripled in price? Almost all the parameters of the project have changed, and never once has an opportunity been given back to the Members to confirm that they actually support this project. In a public government, in 2008, with Members duly elected to run the Northwest Territories, how can such a thing have been allowed to happen?

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what’s driving the bridge anymore. I could tell you some people in governments long past who might have been driving the bridge. But I don’t know what’s driving the bridge anymore. I don’t know who wants the bridge. I don’t know who supports it. I don’t know who wants to pay for it.

Interjection.

Well, I see we have one supporter.

You know, when we talk about government cuts…. CBC went out to the street, and people heard about reductions in government spending. They said, “Why are we building a Deh Cho Bridge, then?” The Union of Northern Workers have said, “Why are we building a Deh Cho Bridge?” The people who are going to be paying the tolls have said, “Why are we building a Deh Cho Bridge?” I’d like to ask the Premier, or anybody who wants to answer over there: what is now driving this project?

Mr. Speaker, first let’s take care of one of the rumours that are out there. The reduction scenario that we’re planning to work around and targeting is not the funded Deh Cho Bridge project. Some have heard rumours out there, so let’s clear that out of the way.

The fact is that the legislation that was developed and passed through this House defined the parameters of the project. The parameters talked about a number of factors. Those factors have been made public, as we’ve heard already. Members have been briefed on a number of those areas.

There is a provision that would come back, for example, to a vote. But it would be after the fact to establish the funding to flow through O&M payments through the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. But nothing stopped even the previous Assembly, because at this point there is an agreement in place that is driving this project. It is a concession agreement that is in place, a funding agreement. Lending institutions have signed letters. So that project is moving along as long as it meets those parameters of decisions made by a previous government.

Nothing stopped Members of the past government from removing that piece of legislation. That’s what it would have required. But that wasn’t done at that time. We are now in the 16th Assembly where that agreement is in place, and it’s moving along.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is absolutely right: this project is going to require a vote after the fact to appropriate the funds. And it is way after the fact, because the facts have completely changed.

You know, this is about government expenditure. This project is going to call for $2 million a year, at least, indexed over 35 years, plus $750,000 a year for administration to collect the toll. Can we put a motion in the House, here, to kill this legislation today? You said we could have done it in the last government — remove this legislation from the books. What about a vote now?

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the 16th Assembly making a motion to get rid of that act would place us in a higher liability or risk mode, because agreements are out there. A concession agreement is in place. They’re meeting their targets. The liability would go beyond our loan guarantee of $9 million at this point.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if we could have gotten a copy of that concession agreement, we might have sought our own legal opinion about whether or not our liability would have been extended with the signing of the concession agreement.

The Premier is asserting that for us now to kill the legislation, to kill the project, would expose us to some liability. He’s obviously privy to information that we are not privy to, because we haven’t even seen the concession agreement yet, never mind voted on it or supported it.

Anyway, I’d like to know what the Auditor General thinks of this whole process. There must be, someplace out there, an independent opinion that could look at what has transpired here and give us an opinion about it.

Would the Premier please give us a copy of the concession agreement so we can get an independent legal opinion? Please give us a copy of all the other documentation to go to the Auditor General, so that we can say, “Does this meet the standard of transparency and accountability for a public government?”

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that during the normal review of our public accounts, the Auditor General looks at the accounts of this government and requests information from time to time when they see something they’d like to pay some attention to. The loan guarantee in this amount has been looked at and information has been requested, and we’re working with her office to provide that information.

I’ve also committed to Members to provide information around this project and am getting that together so that I can provide that information to Members.

Unfortunately, it’s too little, too late, in my opinion. Unlike my colleague Mr. Ramsay, who keeps saying he supports the bridge, I don’t support the bridge anymore. I want to have been given a chance to decide how I wanted to spend $2 million indexed over the next 35 years, and I was not given the opportunity to vote on that expenditure and that commitment.

I would like to ask the Premier if he will please make available to the Members the legal opinion that was solicited by cabinet which says that our liability has been extended by the signing of that concession agreement.