Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Nadli, Mr. Moses, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Dolynny.
All those opposed, please rise.
Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Menicoche.
All those abstaining, please rise.
Mr. Blake, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. McLeod – Yellowknife South, Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. McLeod – Inuvik Twin Lakes.
Results: yes, seven; no, two; abstentions, eight. Motion is carried.
---Carried
The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to return to item 5, please.
---Unanimous consent granted
I’d like to recognize Ms. Brenda McDonald, who is a constituent from Inuvik and also one of our great female Aboriginal leaders in the territory.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Item 18, first reading of bills. The honourable Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request unanimous consent to proceed with first reading of Bill 4, Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), 2012-2013.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 4, Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), 2012-2013, be read for the first time.
Bill 4, Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), 2012-2013, has had first reading.
---Carried
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 4, Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), 2012-2013, be read for the second time.
This bill authorizes the Government of the Northwest Territories to make appropriations for operations expenditures for the 2012-2013 fiscal year.
Bill 4 has had second reading.
---Carried
The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Blake.
BILL 3:
AN ACT TO AMEND THE
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, be read for the second time.
Bill 3 amends the Human Rights Act to authorize the Speaker, on the recommendation of the Board of Management, to designate the chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission. The commission members may designate an acting chairperson of the commission in certain circumstances.
Bill 3 has had second reading.
---Carried
The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Blake.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 69(2) and have Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Human Rights Act, moved into Committee of the Whole today.
---Unanimous consent granted
Bill 3 will be moved into Committee of the Whole. Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 2-17(3), Commissioner’s Opening Address: Creating the Conditions for Success; Tabled Document 17-17(3), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 7, 2010-2011; Tabled Document 18-17(3) Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 4, 2010-2011; Tabled Document 19-17(3), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2012-2013; Bill 1, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act; Committee Report 1-17(3), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on the Review of the 2010-2011 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories; Committee Report 2-17(3), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on the Review of the 2010-2011 Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission Annual Report, with Mr. Dolynny in the chair.
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. We have a number of items to consider here in Committee of the Whole. We have Tabled Document 2-17(3), Commissioner’s Opening Address: Creating the Condition for Success; Tabled Document 17-17(3), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 7, 2010-2011; Tabled Document 18-17(3) Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 4, 2010-2011; Tabled Document 19-17(3), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2012-2013; Bill 1, Bill 3, Committee Report 1-17(3), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on the Review of the 2010-2011 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories; Committee Report 2-17(3), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on the Review of the 2010-2011 Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission Annual Report. What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The committee wishes to consider Tabled Document 19-17(3), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2012-2013. Thankyou.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Agreed. We’ll commence after just a short break.
---SHORT RECESS
Welcome back, committee. Committee agreed that we will be working on Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2012-2013. We will be going to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger, for opening comments. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here to present Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2012-2013. This document provides for an increase of $10.014 million for operations expenditures and an increase of $105.745 million for capital investment expenditures in the 2012-2013 fiscal year. The total supplementary request is $115.759 million.
Major items in this supplementary estimate include:
$105.7 million to carry over funding for infrastructure projects. This funding was approved and lapsed in the 2011-12 fiscal period. The carry-overs for capital investment expenditures in the supplementary estimates represent about 35 percent of the 2011-12 revised capital budget.
$850,000 for investments under the Energy Priorities Investment Plan to install a wood pellet boiler at the Deh Gah School in Fort Providence and an electric boiler system for the Northern Lights Special Care Facility in Fort Smith.
$10 million for the Department of Transportation for funding for the completion of the Deh Cho Bridge, to resolve claims and to help ensure the benefits of the bridge are realized by November 2012.
$2.5 million for the Department of Transportation to continue the engineering and environmental assessment work for the Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk Highway Project.
I am prepared to review the details of the supplementary estimates document.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Miltenberger, do you have witnesses you wish to bring into the House?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. If we can get the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring in our guests.
Minister Miltenberger, would you care to introduce your guests to the committee members?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On my left I have Mike Aumond, deputy minister of finance. To my immediate right, Russ Neudorf, deputy minister of Transportation. As well, to my far right, Mr. Sandy Kalgutkar, deputy secretary to the FMB. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Kalgutkar, Mr. Neudorf, Mr. Aumond, welcome back to the House. With that, we’ll be opening the floor to general comments on the Supplementary Appropriation, No. 1. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When it comes to capital expenditures and something of this nature, it’s always a great concern to myself and some of the committees that I sit on. It seems pretty significant, $105 million of carry-over. We often don’t like to see this. We like to see our capital investment expended in the year that we have, especially when it comes to constituencies and getting these monies expended.
Most particularly, there is some carry-over money for Highway No. 7. I would certainly have liked to have seen that done last year, but I’m pleased to see that it’s just a little bit of extra cash that we can use for Highway No. 7 for this coming year.
Once again, when it comes to expenditures, especially in the highway system, and I spoke with the Minister at length and brought it up in the House, about having the capital projects expended early in the year, July, August, as opposed to September, October. Because there are always lots of carry-overs in highway investment in my riding because those are typically rainy seasons and a lot of work cannot get done.
I see this carry-over and I’m, of course, looking for that same commitment, at least on Highway No. 7, that the expenditures get done early. At the appropriate time I would be looking for the plan for that money for this coming year and when it will be expended.
Of course, it’s not all carry-overs. I think there is now an addition of the $10 million for the Deh Cho Bridge. Like I said, my constituency is concerned and I don’t think that they’re surprised that there’s another increase in the expenditures of the Deh Cho Bridge. Of course, they’re concerned, because any time we expend money like this on the Deh Cho Bridge and/or there’s some money in here for the Inuvik-Tuk highway, my concern has always been it’s taking resources away from other constituencies and expenditures. I’ve gone to great lengths to heighten the awareness of this government for Highway No. 7 and still it doesn’t appear in any of their documentation mandate letters or priorities of the government, and I remain focused on that. But every time they’re asked for more money – and it’s easy to put in a supp it seems – I feel kind of a twinge that I kind of have to support it and yet we see little expenditures on Highway No. 7. That’s my concern.
I just want to let my constituency know that I continue to raise the issue of Highway No. 7 and fight and fight and fight. One day I’d like to see an investment in Highway No. 7. The Minister and I have just done a trip down Highway No. 7, and I’m quite pleased about it. My constituency and the leadership are very pleased that he did, but at the same time, I’d like to see that type of expedition trip translate into actual resources for Highway No. 7.
I’ll just leave those opening comments there for now. Mahsi cho.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Your fight for Highway No. 7 is duly noted. Moving on with general comments, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to comment briefly on these items. The $105.7 million carry-over for infrastructure, representing projects that were not done or completed, at 35 percent of our total expenditure for the last year is quite a large carry-over.
During the 16th Assembly we did have a special deputy ministers committee on infrastructure that did a lot of thinking and implementing of a new approach to deal with our challenges, which are many in the sort of whimsical northern environment that people have to deal with, problems of access and so on, and that included moving to Class C estimates so that we were more accurate on our estimating costs of infrastructure, and probably the biggest was that we moved our capital budget debate to the fall so that we would have a full period of time within which to plan and arrange for spring transportation of materials. However, I think it’s also well known that we went through an amazing almost a billion dollars’ worth of infrastructure in the 16th Assembly, due partly to the federal contribution of funds for stimulation and the Building Canada Fund. I think we have a pretty good record of delivering infrastructure at an exceptional rate during those years. Nevertheless, this is a well-recognized challenge. We have put actions in place and now as we drop back to a more modest capital budget this year, I will be looking to see that percentage of carry-over drop significantly. If not, it is back to the drawing board.
I am always supporting investments that are saving us money as these energy initiatives do for the Deh Gah School in Fort Providence, and the electrical weather system in Fort Smith, Northern Lights Special Care Facility. Those are sound investments. Again, $10 million for the bridge, we have spoken clearly on that. This is unacceptable, but here we are between a rock and a hard place. Hopefully, this does indeed cap this off and get the bridge in place this fall and we won’t be hearing further appropriations there.
With respect to the $2.5 million sort of repeat expenditure for the Inuvik-Tuk highway, what did we learn from our last-minute investment of a similar amount during 2011-12? How does this amount use that information? Again, I look forward for more information on that. We want to be careful with our infrastructure dollars, obviously, given the tremendous demand and the debts that we have in putting infrastructure in place. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. We are moving on to general questions. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will discuss some of these issues as well. It is a big concern to me the amount of $105 million in carry-overs from previous year. That is a large amount of money to be not putting out into the territory, especially when the economy of the Northwest Territories has been slow.
I understand that the infrastructure projects have been quite large over the last few years. This year has been a smaller one, so I am really looking forward to seeing those dollars hit the ground in the Northwest Territories and go to helping the economy of the Northwest Territories. I hope that we maximize the amount of northern content in those contracts and make sure that the people of the North get to receive that money as far as employment, as far as contracts, and that we retain most of that work in the North so that we can basically use our economic spinners and make sure that money multiplies three or four times over and we can get a money multiplier there.
I definitely am encouraged to see the $850,000 on biomass and the electric boiler system in Fort Smith. Mr. Bromley indicated that it is an innovative way of the government spending their money. I think we’re going to get some efficiency there.
The $10 million for the Transportation and the Deh Cho Bridge is obviously a difficult one. Some Members have already expressed their concerns about this expenditure and the ongoing expenditure. It’s an issue, as a new MLA, we have inherited from the former Legislative Assembly and the project is not a pretty one. The public is definitely frustrated with this project. The difficulty is, we are in a very difficult position. We could sit here and argue and fight with the contractor, and indications are that we could win some battles and we would lose some battles, but the difficulty is that it would take time, and the more time that we have, the longer increased costs we have.
We have some additional costs of running the ferry, additional costs of running the ice road, additional management fees, so those just about outweigh the total amount of the additional cost of the bridge. So it is one of those things, do we pick a fight just to pick a fight, or do we pick a fight that we think we can win?
I think the department has looked at those options. Right now the only option we have is to hopefully just get this project done. It has already been a fiasco. The public’s impression of this project is not going to be improved if we can sit here and say we are able to save $10 million this year, but we battled and we fought for another year or six months and it ended up costing us another $9 million or $10 million. Who knows how many more millions of dollars?
So right now I support the $10 million. Let’s get it done. Let’s move on, hopefully from this project, and start collecting tolls, start paying off the debt on this bridge. Hopefully, in 25 or 35 years we will be happy that this bridge was created.
The final issue is the Department of Transportation for the Tuk-Inuvik highway. I support the concept of the Tuk to Inuvik highway. I would like to see, after this assessment is completed, the terms of reference for the development of the project from this point forward. How much is it going to cost us? Do we have an agreement with the federal government? Right now I do believe it’s 75/25 for the federal government to be putting 75 percent in, us 25 percent. Are they committed if the project goes over budget?
Obviously, talking about the Deh Cho Bridge, we can assume that sometimes projects will go over budget. It would be difficult if this project is going to go over the estimated amount and we end up having to do a 50/50 deal. I don’t think we can afford that. Again, I think before we get too far into the process and committing too many dollars, we need to assess where the project is at. I definitely right now support the concept. I think it’s going to provide economy into the region that is suffering. It also expands the development of the North to build northern roads. It’s a link to oil and gas. It is also a link to tying our North together from north to south.
Eventually we are going to be asked to consider the Mackenzie Valley Highway as well. This is one link, and this is one link that the federal government has, for some reason, a strong interest in right now. I think we should be supporting it for now, but we definitely need to work out some of the details and some of the logistics of the costs to the total project, lay them down now so that we know exactly what we are getting into. Those are all my comments for now, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. With general comments we have Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess with item one there, $105.7 million carry-over, a lot of my concerns are the same as my colleagues’ concern, whether we have enough resources in this territory to ensure that the money is being allocated for these infrastructure projects, that we do have enough adequate resources to see it through. I would like to possibly see a strategic plan developed that will allow this government to be more efficient in getting these dollars spent, and obviously it will create work in our communities and create jobs. With that money being spent in communities, it will add to increasing our economy and especially in the regions here.
Item two, I am glad to see that there is an investment into these two projects here. I suggest that this government keep tabs on these projects just to see what the return on investment is with this initial investment. You don’t see in two to five years down the road how this investment today actually helped the government in terms of better spending and not spending so much money on other fuel.
I think we have all heard enough about the Deh Cho Bridge over the last couple of days. I myself want to see the bridge get done. I made some comments yesterday that it does take away, in my opinion, from other capital projects in the Northwest Territories. The sooner we get it done, we can kind of worry about the operations and maintenance of this bridge, but I’m hoping that this is the last time we see a supplementary appropriation come back for money for the completion of this bridge and we do get it done in the timeline that’s been mentioned here.
The $2.5 million for the Inuvik-Tuk highway, it’s good to see that in there again. I hope we see some very positive results from the geotechnical studies and the work that’s going into this project. Obviously, it is the beginning of developing the Mackenzie Valley Highway and I think it’s a good approach that we start from Inuvik to Tuk. The only reason being, as we continue this bigger project of the Mackenzie Valley Highway, if we have that structure in first, that component in first, it will lower the costs for the residents of Tuktoyaktuk and allow more services to get up to Tuktoyaktuk and also increase some of the work and economy in a region that’s desperately needing some work.
There’s not too much more I can say on these opening remarks from the Minister that hasn’t already been said by my other colleagues. We are making progress. Some projects we need to see get done. That’s it, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. General comments. I have Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am now prepared to start my hour-long filibuster on this particular project. I am well prepared to do what’s necessary.
The issue here before us in this supplementary appropriation is there’s still no details as to why we need to realize the extra $10 million. I’ve been after that particular answer. There still seems to be no answer other than vague ones, like trust me, our legal people say this. But what are our legal people saying? What are the complications or factors? We need to see what the issues are.
Now, there are those who suggest that this is a delay of the bridge. I disagree. We aren’t seeing a tools down situation. If we were, that would be our explanation right now. If they refused to do any work, they’d put their tools down and they’d put it in writing that they’re not satisfied with the fact that we’d like this contract fulfilled. It’s not a question of support for the project. By all means, if that’s what people are hearing, they’ve not heard anything I’ve said the last few days on this issue. They’ve already made their mind up what they think they’ve heard.
In fact, it’s not a question about support for the project. I haven’t wavered in my support for the project. If anything, the only time I’ve really been annoyed about the project is listening to the constant criticism over the last term on this one. I really think that the community had a good initiative. I think the constant criticism on this initiative was part of the downfall and the problems of it. Rather than supporting it, getting behind it, trying to find ways of making it work, others wanted to criticize it.
I was always in favour of this agreement through the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. I thought it was a good mechanism to get the community involved. It was their project and I still think there will be a lasting legacy where people feel that this project has been taken away from them. If anything, it’s going to be a constant reminder of that. It will be a long time before people forget this and by the time those people forget, they will just remember the icon it represents, without knowing the whole story.
Mr. Chairman, the issue I have before me is quite simple. I’d like to know the details of why we’re not fulfilling the contract. It just seems to behoove me as well as many others. I just received more e-mails this morning asking why do we need the $10 million other than “because.” Because worked on me as a kid when my mother said it to me or my father said it to me, but people are expecting a little more when we have an adult conversation with adults. Don’t just say because. The taxpayer needs to understand what because means. Saying our legal people are saying we may be on shaky grounds on some things and other things, what are we really talking about? I think that’s the open discussion we need to have.
Again, whether it’s the Minister, the department, managers, associate engineering watching the project, I don’t care if their hearts are broken that this is fair criticism. What is the problem?
The other day Transportation gave a briefing to committee – of course, we can’t speak to the specific details of the briefing – and the fact is there are Members who have left that briefing with still those same questions. What is the detail? What is the problem?
I don’t know what the reluctance is of sitting down, breaking it out and saying this is our primary issue. Here it is on this particular problem and this problem is explained in a certain way. Then they go onto the next one. They may be surprised that they actually get community support. They might even get my support on this particular initiative.
I’ve stood behind the project and I still stand behind the project as a project, a legacy infrastructure for the territorial citizens. Not just the government, but the citizens. If we are building our territory, we have to build it with infrastructure. We have to create projects that provide benefits to communities, provide employment, provide a sense of pride. The reluctance to continue to keep saying why they won’t explain why they can’t fulfill the project seems frustrating. I’m not the only one. I’m already getting e-mails on this. All they are asking for is for an explanation of why we can’t fulfill the contract signed by Ruskin.
Now, the Minister’s statement the other day refers to an AIP drafting. There’s no clear answer. If he was on this side of the House, I guarantee he’d be asking the same darn questions. You shouldn’t be scoffing at me or trying to heckle me back on this particular issue, because he would be asking the same damn questions. If he’s trying to pretend he’s not, he’s fooling not only himself but everybody else.
Be careful with your use of language, Mr. Hawkins. Thank you.
Fair point, Mr. Speaker. I don’t mean it to be personal, but I can tell you it wouldn’t be surprising that he would be asking these questions. No one would be surprised. It’s not meant to offend. The fact is, these are just fair questions. All I’m asking for is why isn’t this contract being fulfilled. Explain it to us so we can explain it to the citizens.
You look at the supplementary appropriation, it’s basically a one-liner, more money for the Deh Cho Bridge so we can open it up November 2012.
There are ten million reasons to ask a few questions and have a little delay on this particular question and spend the time and say what are the reasons. Why should we be afraid of the reasons? At least today the Minister relented at the very end and said maybe some of these issues should be made public. I’m sure they will be sanitized to be very benign. I think the public deserves some explanation. He may be surprised. The public may be fully in agreement of the extra $10 million. I’ve had constituents come to me and say, just finish the bridge, it doesn’t matter what it costs, just get a good product at the end of the day. I certainly support that principle. Let’s get it done; let’s pay whatever it’s worth if it needs to be done.
The fact is, it’s still clouded with these questions about why we can’t fulfill the contract. My question about trying to get our engineers trying to get the contract done, why can’t we get that fulfilled? What’s the fear of getting that answer? It seems to be nothing but stonewall, change the subject, let’s talk about going forward. We all want to go forward. Myself included, okay? We should emphasize that. I want to go forward, too, because I’m looking forward to the final chapter of the Deh Cho Bridge.
This has nothing to do with personality. This is just a question of what is the money for, and that seems to keep getting lost on this whole situation.
Mr. Chairman, it’s not frustration just held by me. There are other Members on this particular side of the House that just want this project gone and don’t want to deal with it anymore, and I respect that. But there are underlying questions from Members on what are we buying into for $10 million. We know what $10 million could buy us, which is a theoretic opening this fall 2012. We know what the money is intended for. We’ve heard the Minister say this makes us go forward, this will help get the project completed. Who’s lost on that message? No one. No one has not heard him say that. Who’s in disagreement with that? Nobody, including myself, is in disagreement with that initiative. We just want some explanation and some answer as to why the contract isn’t being fulfilled.
Today we hear context of maybe change orders. I know the last Minister was stalwart against any change orders in direction because he knew it would cost money. What type of discussion with the committee members, the Assembly Members through Caucus, to find out what these changes mean? Any time a change order is issued, I know it means money. It means money to somebody, whether it’s us or them. Chances are the way government works, it always means government’s money.
The fact is, these are the types of questions we can reasonably ask. If you went to the bank today and said I want $10 million, they’re going to ask you why. We’ve got the Minister of Finance saying we need $10 million. It’s just a matter of saying, well, explain to us why you need it. We know what the outcome is going to be: the bridge. Sure, that’s simple, but it’s the foundation of the problem which is we need to explain and fully understand and have it out there and not be embarrassed about it. If we had asked for something that was needed, who is going to say that’s wrong? If we needed something because cables needed to be changed because of safety, or lighting needed to be proposed for clarification, or ramping needed to be adjusted because the original design didn’t work, that’s the types of questions that seem to continually be refused. That’s, at the end of the day, what the questions are.
What is our $10 million getting us, other than an accelerated schedule just so the government feels and looks good. We’ve already missed two targets on completion dates. Of course, no one wants to miss a third one. It’s not to anyone’s benefit. Who wants to run the ferry for yet another term? Other than the ferry workers, of course. Other than those guys, who I do feel sorry for, but progress has come along and now a bridge that is being constructed is almost completed.
Just to wrap it up, the department, whether it’s Finance or Transportation or the Minister or the deputy minister, they have to start answering those questions, which is what is the problem exactly, and that will explain why we need the $10 million. The silence is deafening.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Moving to general comments. Ms. Bisaro.
