Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple of comments here. You know, you look at the amount of money in this supplementary appropriation and it’s very large, $105 million, almost $106 million, and it seems huge. I have to echo the comments of one of my colleagues earlier, who stated that we have in the last couple of previous years had a huge amount of infrastructure projects throughout the two fiscal years and we have been taking advantage of the federal dollars that have been available, and I fully support that. I did support it and I continue to support it. Over the years our carry-over for infrastructure has averaged around 35 percent and that goes back some 10 or 11 years, I believe. It’s interesting to me to note that in a year when we did probably two or three times as many infrastructure projects as we normally do, we still are carrying over 35 percent of our infrastructure projects from last year to this year. In a year when we had such a huge number of projects, and large projects, that’s pretty good, in my mind.
I caution looking at this total appropriation without considering that we have had an extremely ambitious schedule for two years running, and we’re kind of getting back to a normal level of activity, I guess, for lack of a better way of putting it. I think that the carry-overs that are in this budget are reasonable. I would encourage the department from now on, however, to try to bring our carry-over amounts down to the lowest percentage possible. They have been going down over the last few years, but continue the downward trend is my advice to you, and try to get to the point where we are able to accomplish a lot more than just 65 percent of our projects in any one year.
I wanted to comment on the new items that are in this appropriation. There are two projects which are doing positive things for our energy use and energy costs. Those are a good way to go. Both of these will be decreasing costs. One is an electrical issue, the other is biomass. I support both of these projects. It’s not a huge amount of money, yet almost $1 million, but it’s well worth it, in my mind, and I do support those.
I do have some problems with the other two million dollar items that are here. I spoke yesterday about the bridge and I won’t ask a lot of questions because I don’t think there are any answers really that we haven’t heard already. I am concerned that this project continues to cost us money. I really fervently hope that we are not going to get another supplementary appropriation asking for more money for the bridge. I believe in the project but I also believe that the project was not started properly in the first place, and we’ve been trying to play catch-up on the project from its inception. The previous Assembly inherited the project. This Assembly has now inherited the project. Every one of us has been in the situation where we are now, where it’s like again you’re coming for money and we have very little opportunity to influence it except to move to delete the expenditure. I’m not willing to do that.
I have to say that I’m thoroughly looking forward to the full investigation from start to finish of the whole project. The Transportation Minister said yesterday that that’s still on the books. I’m very glad to hear that. I think there are a lot of lessons to be learned here. I think some of them have already been learned, and the development of our P3 policy, I believe is a really good step forward and it should save us from some of the huge mistakes we made on the bridge project, if we go into P3 projects in the future.
I do have concerns with the Inuvik-Tuk highway project. I expressed some of those in February when we approved the first $2.5 million. I have this sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach and this little niggling thought in the back of my head which says here we go, we’re going into another bridge project here. I again fervently hope that is not the case, but there is so little information for us as Members to deal with here. We are almost being told, just trust us, we know what we’re doing. Just give us another $2.5 million and it will be fine. I appreciate we have to do advance work. I feel better about this appropriation than I did about the previous one, because we had so little notice on the previous one. At least we knew that this one was coming. The rationale is still the same. I recognize that we have to do advance work, we have to do investigative work to determine the scope of the project. I sure hope we get full detail, full disclosure of the project when it comes back for more money, and for significantly more money, if it’s going to go ahead. I don’t feel at this point in time we really know what we’re getting ourselves into, and as I think Mr. Bouchard stated, I am really concerned about the commitment on the part of the federal government. I am willing to support the project but I am not willing to support it for 50 cent dollars, because it’s my belief that the federal government should be putting money into new highways, not provincial and territorial governments.
That said, I will somewhat grudgingly approve this appropriation, but I did feel that I needed to express my concerns.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. General comments. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this point, I just wanted to reiterate a couple of points. First and foremost, as we kind of forge ahead in terms of trying to get the government operational, I think this exercise is very interesting, at least for myself. This is my first budget that I’ve been witness to in terms of how the government operates. Despite the move forward, there are still some aspirations of communities that I represent, some real capital infrastructure needs. Communities are wanting to become more independent in terms of trying to be self-sustaining communities. Recently I talked about communities initiating gardens so they can grow their own food and trying to get a level of independence.
In that light, some communities have expressed the desire to see if there could be some investments made and established in their own water treatment plants. Along those lines, too, there are still, I believe, some technical challenges in terms of trying to do some complete repairs for that. The water intake lines that are remedied so that they consider and uphold the safety and confidence of the public that their water is still useable and safe to consume. There needs to be some efforts to work with local governments to ensure that those projects carry forth. Perhaps they’re not in the immediate future, but at least efforts are made to work with local governments so that they can start identifying some priorities in their capital plan.
Apart from that, I don’t really have a major concern in terms of how this budget is going to go forth. It’s just, again, reiterating that if it’s infrastructure down the road, I’ve raised it before as a sidebar from the whole thrust to get the bridge complete, I would like to think that the public safety will become an issue in terms of the increased volume of traffic in the Fort Providence area passing through. Similar to how other communities that are situated on a highway, but more so for Fort Providence, because I think we’re kind of in an area where there’s a blank space in terms of when you drive through, you don’t have cellular service. That’s one thing that I’ve mentioned before, whether this government could help out, or at the very least and at the very minimum, to discuss with community leaders in terms of how it is that it could happen.
We just recently saw industry open up and provided more industry prospects of establishing a telecommunications network here in the Northwest Territories. Surely there must be a company out there that could work with the community, whether it’s going to be a joint venture locally or just the private industry that comes into the community to help out and step up to the plate and at least provide some assistance. At least a framework of possibilities, or even scope out the possibility of establishing a cellular service in Fort Providence. I think if that happens, then of course it’s a plus for business and for tourism. People will enjoy their time in Fort Providence and the surrounding area, whether it’s for sport fishing or sport hunting. If that at the very minimum could be done within this period I’d really welcome that initiative to ensure that we work closely with the communities. That’s all my comments.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The $105.7 million carry-over for infrastructure projects that had been approved and lapsed in the 2011-2012 period, certainly we see the benefits in our communities. Certainly, the Minister has my support for these projects. They’re worthwhile. They’re beneficial to my people in the region. We look forward to the completion of them. I’m not too sure how much I want to go into the detail of the planning and how we get these projects to completion, but it does show the federal government influence in our budget when they gave the money to us to get some of these project on the way.
The investment in the energy priorities and investment plan, I certainly hope that – again I will reiterate my mantra – the Minister needs to look beyond the southern portion of the region and look further north of Simpson, or look to see where these type of energy initiatives can be put into our government facilities, and make it so schools like Fort Good Hope, which was recently built, would have been ideal to put a wood pellet in there. However, because of transportation or other issues, it didn’t make it happen. We’re looking at Norman Wells at some of the facilities that could be used as wood pellet boiler systems in our communities needs to be looked at. There are also other alternative energy plans, like the hydro coming to our region. I’m looking forward to it. I think over the years I’ve dealt with this issue and I continue to encourage this government to put in some real dollars, other than in studies and studies and studies, put them into action in the Sahtu.
The Minister of Transportation’s completion of the bridge. I know one time, it was to build it I think cost about $6 million at one time in the ’50s, and that was too much money for us. Today now we’re talking over $200 million. It’s going to be that. I know that. We are sort of caught between a rock and a hard place on this one here. I know the department is working with the contractors to get it fixed on time and on budget. That was their mantra. Things like that sometimes don’t quite go the way we want because of unforeseen circumstances. But we’re almost done. We just need to pull it over and get it done.
There are certain questions. From the day of its conception, we had questions, to the way that it actually got off the ground. We had questions. The Minister across the aisle here was one of the biggest advocates on these questions to the bridge. Now the Minister is advocating and wants to get the bridge done. There are other bigger projects that we need to tackle in the Northwest Territories. Bigger ones than this, like the Mackenzie Valley Highway. When you put things in perspective on this bridge and other projects, this is a good hard learning lesson for us. When you compare this to the Mackenzie Valley Highway, this bridge is peanuts, when you want to put in a billion dollar project like the Mackenzie Valley Highway. Members are asking very good questions of us so we can go forward on some of these projects.
I think that it was foretold that this bridge would be over a $200 million project. Sure enough it is. That prophecy has come true. But we also want to get this bridge done and get it built. We have some questions on that and I hope we ask more about them. That doesn’t stop us. I support the work that needs to get done on the Inuvik-Tuk road, and also get that project done. We can use some of the lessons we have learned from the Deh Cho Bridge for the Inuvik-Tuk road, and we need to have some more discussions.
Those are my comments to the supplementary estimates for 2012-13. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Next on my list, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and we welcome Minister Miltenberger and his finance team here today and, as well, Transportation. Supplementary appropriations are always a unique animal. As a new Member, it’s a learning curve being a student to the process. I will make my comments brief on at least two of the four items in the supplementary appropriations today, one being the carry-over of $105 million.
As you heard from our previous colleagues, a carry-over of projects is always a grave concern, why we can’t complete them, but we fully understand that there was some territorial-based funding, a large amount of funding that we had to commit in order to get this funding. As a Member who understands business, it’s just good business sense. We understand there will be some carry-over. We’re hoping that this exercise proves that, as in future as we’re doing budgets, these supplementary carry-overs for infrastructure become smaller in nature and more finite. I have zero problem with that number other than hopefully we can work on making improvements on making that supp a lot less in the future.
Investments in the Energy Priorities Investment Plan for $850,000 for the Fort Providence school and the Northern Lights Special Care Facility in Fort Smith. Again, those are warranted and the explanation that the Members received is duly noted and I will be supporting those.
The next two items on the supplementary, obviously, are causing most of the discussion here today. One in which the first of, the Deh Cho Bridge, the $10 million, it has been debated, or not so much debated but introduced in the House here for discussion. Typically, debate means that you are getting information back and forth that’s credible and reliable. But what we’re receiving in nature on the Regular Member side is far from items that could be debated. We’ve been asking the department, we’ve been asking the Minister for more information, valid information, so that as Regular Members we can make an informed decision for the people of the Northwest Territories.
The Minister, in his previous day, was a business owner, a business entrepreneur, like myself. We were business colleagues before we were legislative colleagues, and these would be the same questions I’d be asking him then, as I do ask him now and has been asked by other Members on this side of the House. Passive acceptance is an unacceptable behaviour by Regular Members, which we’re maybe seeing here today, saying let’s just get it done. I don’t agree with that. This is not doing any favours for the Northwest Territories, because this is just condoning activity that needs to be questioned and debated. This is what we’re paid for. This is what our job is for the people of the Northwest Territories and this has to happen.
Right from the get-go, the Auditor General report for this bridge was very clear. It has gaping holes. This risk matrix still has gaping holes. As I said, or my colleagues said, we can’t discuss items that were discussed in camera sessions with the department, but again, very little changes have been done to the risk matrix under the recommendations under the watchful eye of the Auditor General, and that concerns me as we talk about large-scale projects moving forward.
The Department of Transportation has a track record that clearly indicates, and again, there’s no personal agenda here as an MLA. It’s an observation, and I have parliamentary privilege to do that, but they do have a hard time with carry-overs, with large-scale projects. It’s evident. It’s documented and it’s a fact. They have management issues with large-scale projects, as it’s clear with dealing with large projects such as the Deh Cho Bridge. Anyone paying attention to the latest of, I’ll call it nothing less than a fiasco, for creating an agreement-in-principle with an already agreed upon price but then making another contract. I guess, Madam Chair, is where does this end? If we don’t hit the target, are we going to be doing another contract and another agreement-in-principle?
Businesses have to be held accountable. Contractors have to be held accountable. It’s the fact of doing business. You cannot just keep renegotiating for the sake of saving face. Basically, this is what I’m trying to get at. This is an issue of saving face. The government here has a plan. They want to look good. Why wouldn’t they? I would want to look good too. I want this bridge done too. I want to use this bridge. But saving face at the cost of the taxpayers is not a valid argument. Making assumptions that that $10 million is, oh, let’s just get it done and trust us, is not acceptable. Not providing details to the House, legal opinions, expert advice to the Regular Members on this side, is not acceptable. Having a broad brush approach to trying to make Members believe this is the right thing to do, is equally not acceptable. This makes it very difficult for Members on this side of the House to flippantly agree to a $10 million appropriation when, really, we’ve had very little information. We’ve had more information for items that are under $10,000 than I’ve seen for $10 million, and that is of grave concern to me as a person sitting on this side of the House. For $10 million we should get 10 million reasons why. We’re getting $10 reasons why we should be accepting this. From a Regular Member’s perspective, it makes little sense.
I’m not sure how I will be voting on this supp when it comes to this area, whether we have options of removing it, deferring it. I have no idea, Madam Chair, until we get to that line item.
That said, the fourth item on the list is the continuation of the Inuvik-Tuk highway for further engineering and environmental assessment work. This record has been played months ago, in which this side of the House agreed to a $2.5 million appropriation at that time. Again, we told the government of the day, bring back information, keep us informed, and yet, once again, we see money asked, the same amount of money, without having a formal review exactly what that money was used for, what were the findings of the preliminary environmental assessment. Those were not made public. Does this project seem viable? Do we have enough gravel to make this project? Do we need to seek gravel elsewhere? Will this be incurred at a higher cost? The department knows this information but is not sharing that, and yet, we’re here again to ask for another $2.5 million.
At a point in time this story is going to be no different than the story of the Deh Cho Bridge. Anyone who reads this story will clearly see, and the Auditor General has clearly indicated, that that project just went merrily along until that tipping point occurred, and Members at that day had to make a very important decision because the tipping point of that investment occurred. I have asked, and many other Members of this Assembly have asked, what is that tipping point? When is that point where we get beyond that point of no return where people are going to be looking at each other blindly, going, we have to continue because we spent X number of dollars and we just can’t let this fail. It appears when people speak about large-scale projects, and sometimes these northern areas, people are sometimes stereotyped for speaking out. I think that is wrong. It is not about where the project is. It is about the project. It is about what it cost the taxpayers, because at the end, every man, woman and child will have to pay for it. That concerns me, because it should be about the project and the process.
As I said in previous statements regarding the Inuvik-Tuk highway, I do want to see this. I have gone publicly saying that I want to see this, but I also said that we need to proceed with caution. The department and the management team needs to clearly identify what that risk matrix is as we move forward. To date, we have not received it. When asked for it, we were told we have to get more information. It is literally a shell game in terms of getting the proper information to make the right, informed decisions. We just don’t have those tools. Once again we are going to be faced with the daunting task of looking at another $2.5 million, with very limited information. Regular Members cannot do our job properly without being told all the facts. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Next on the list is Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to use the opportunity now to speak to a couple of the other items on the list. I will start with the infrastructure projects that are seen as carry-overs. Frankly, I have been saying it for a number of years, that I am still convinced that the Department of Finance, through FMB, is allowing the capital budget to grow in the Northwest Territories in a manner that we can’t sustain. What I mean by that is we are taking on more projects than we can get done. I don’t consider an average 35 percent a good average of capital carry-overs. You will hear that some years we were less and you will hear that some years we were more. Really, what we are doing is prescribing projects that we know we can’t do, I could say today. I am sure the Finance Minister could say today that the 2012-13 carry-overs will be about 35 percent, with great confidence, I am sure. Why? Because we have a history of this. We are approving more money. We are allocating more money against our debt limit to be able to respond to capital investments in a manner that we just know we can’t satisfy. We know that the workforce out there can’t sustain them and certainly respond to our needs. At the same time, when we approve a capital project and we know we can’t fulfill it, we also know that we run the potential risk of overruns and other problems associated with that. If we were preparing for those, then I question the estimates that we have provided for those capital projects.
The issue here is we knowingly are supporting in our next capital budget on a potential basis, obviously, that we will be prescribing ourselves one-third of our budget that we cannot fulfill. That begs the question: Why are we committing that money?
We have many good projects that need to be fulfilled. Many community governments, communities and government departments have many requirements that we all like to meet and certainly help them out. If we know we can’t fulfill them, I’m not even sure why we put them to the capital budget that particular year.
The Department of Finance, through FMB, has to take a stronger approach on approving projects that we know we can’t fulfill. Some projects on these particular lists haven’t even started. Some have only been merely started. Some, in my view, when it is 90 percent done, and they have to come back for a little extra money, sorry, time to spend the money, that, to me, is what capital carry-over is really meant to be, some work needed to be finished or refinished, a contract needs to be fulfilled properly. Those types of delays are reasonable. Usually they come with reasonable suggestions, but when you will see projects on the list that haven’t been started or they have been barely started… I think there was one that was only a few hundred dollars spent. I can’t imagine what the heck that was. Someone bought a binder for the potential project that they maybe started. It’s ridiculous when I think about how much is really being spent. We are doing two-thirds of the work. We are saying two-thirds of our work is good. That is our objective, but first we pass a large capital budget.
Transportation, of course, we know is the lion’s share of this, but there are other capital projects that could get better focus. It’s all about allocating capital dollars properly. The issue is that it’s not about taking away projects that are important or necessary, whether the view of the community, the Aboriginal government that we partner with or the needs of infrastructure within the government system. It’s not a question of suggesting that these needs are necessarily important or relevant. It’s just about prudent spending.
It is my view that we, or I should say, as we know, our capital budget is driven by our surplus. There is supposed to be a cap on it, of course. That money is then matched by borrowed money. What we are doing is we are allocating commitments publicly that chew down our borrowing limit, even though we may not technically spend the money but we have actually made technical commitments on paper.
We have often heard the phrase “not real money.” Well, we may not spend real money, but we committed real money. That is a burden on our books. It certainly is a burden on the citizens that have great hopes that these projects are coming in a timely way.
Many people fought for many of the capital projects that are within our capital budget. They have struggled with the fact that they are not easy things to get in. I don’t have to look to Mr. Yakeleya too often to not hear the story about how Colville Lake deserves a washroom. How many times do I hear that? I know it’s a complicated problem. It’s not a complicated solution, but it is a complicated problem. Quite frankly, let’s get them a toilet. But I understand the problem comes with having a vacuum truck and disposal needs. Yes, there are issues. It’s not as simple as just plugging in the water and everybody will be fine. We have real partners in our communities that can work together and make these solutions. We have projects that I think should get fulfilled while others sit and wait to be expended.
I think the whole philosophy of capital carry-overs needs to be revisited. Of course, they will always tell us we’re always looking at them. Do we have the staff to do these things? That is another question.
Certainly, we can only expect so much. There are only so many hours in the day and our expectation of our staff working beyond their capacity is probably very unreasonable. Are we preparing ourselves by providing more projects than our staff are able to fulfill? It’s not a question of competency, it’s a question of reality. We only have so many project officers. We only have so many contract experts. We only have so many people who can produce and review these particular things once they are out. We have to do implementation, follow-up. There are so many gambits to…once just even agreeing to a capital project is a big deal. It is followed with a mountain of process and paperwork afterwards.
The question is: Is it partnered up fully? This is not just simply saying we are approving one-third too much in capital projects. It’s also about looking at ourselves and saying, are we prepared to do these things. We’re not. Whether it is community planning, preparation through staff or whether it’s just good philosophy on work. I don’t know. There are a lot of problems associated with this. Quite frankly, it needs to be visited with a sharp pencil and asterisk and some serious, sober thought by asking ourselves are we doing more than we can really achieve. I think we set ourselves up for failure. Of course, as we promise the community that, oh, you will get this water truck in 2011 and they don’t get it because we didn’t plan for the barge that year or the contract went out so it sits another year and people get very upset. People are counting on these things. If you are wanting a grader in a small community such as Ulukhaktok, you have to be planning for these types of things. You have to be thinking about these types of things. Do we have the staff with the ability and time to do these things? Maybe not in all cases. In some cases we are so busy with other consuming projects. You may hear from the Minister, well, we will refocus energy when we take some of these big projects off the table. You know what? It seems as if we…
One of my constituents has a funny little saying. He always says he just finishes a renovation project just in time to start another one. I think the point of this one is we will just finish one project and just wonderfully dovetail into another one. The work continues, the need continues, absolutely. I’m not in a particular spot to say these projects are unworthy. I think they’re all worthy in their own situation. If it was up to me, though, I think, and I know, there isn’t committee support, I really wish there was, to delete a few of these things and say, look, if it was that important, why didn’t you kick it off and get it started? We hear about how important projects are and then the government will tell us how important projects are, and they’ll come with their little business model and say the community really wants this, whether it’s the local education board or the local community government or the department staff couldn’t live without this. Then the next year you find out they hadn’t even started it. Where does that put us? It puts us with the question of did they really need it? This capital budget coming this fall will happen and we’ll hear the same story: This project is so important. It’s so important in the community, it’s so important to the government, it’s so important to the organization. If we don’t fulfill this obligation, the sky will fall. Yet, I have no doubt, and I would like to be proven wrong, that next year we’ll be looking at a carry-over of another approximately one-third of our capital projects.
The capital projects process needs to be revisited. Yes, it will hurt some feelings and I understand that, but if we set it as a structure that we could truly, objectively meet, I think people will be respecting that. Industry will be prepared. If we’re trying to build too much and we know that the contractors don’t exist, then why are we getting behind projects that we know we can’t meet? We’re building false expectations. At the same time, we don’t want to create a false industry with, well, we have all these projects this year, but then they gear up and won’t be there the following year. People need to plan accordingly, and a spread out capital budget spreads out the spending. That type of philosophy is a good base for people to work with. They can see projects come on the horizon, they can plan accordingly. Don’t vamp up. We’re almost creating a boom and bust cycle by our own plans that we know we can’t fulfill.
That’s why it’s so important to ask ourselves are we saying we’re going to do more than we can. Two-thirds of our capital budget has gone through. Quite frankly, that says we can only continue to do two-thirds of the job. I would have hoped, as I said earlier in my example, it’s just a simplified example, I understand there’s complicated cases around it, but the last thought I’ll leave you is the fact that, as I said, 90 percent of a project is an example of reasonable expectations that we had to carry over a little extra money. That’s the type of philosophy we should be targeting with. When you come to the table with stuff that’s zero or 1 or 2 percent of the project hasn’t been spent, that tells me that the system is being abused and the process is not being fairly fulfilled.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Next on my list is Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. One thing I’m looking forward to here is to finally complete the Deh Cho Bridge. I think we could achieve that this year if we stay on target. Also be in a position to start tackling our priorities we set here for the 17th Assembly. I am really looking forward to that. Also some other energy initiatives that we’re planning here for the next year.
I just wanted to express that and I look forward to continuing this.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. Committee, are we agreed we are concluded opening comments? Mr. Lafferty.
Madam Chair, notwithstanding Rule 6(1), I move that Committee of the Whole continues sitting beyond the hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing and concluding consideration of Tabled Document 19-17(3), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2012-2013.
Thank you, committee, for your patience. We have determined that this motion is in order. The motion is on the floor. The motion is not debateable.
---Carried
We are on general comments. Is committee agreed that we are concluded general comments? Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. While clearly I won’t spend a lot of time, I just want to make reference to that last motion. I think that this is a simple example of government rushing it through. Knowing that I cannot talk for three days or whatnot is seriously unreasonable. I think that this is no different than an act by what’s happening in our own Parliament, whether shutting down debate or closing off reasonable discussion, and I think what’s moved today has shown that this supplementary appropriation will get through no matter what.
Quite frankly, as I said earlier and I continue to clearly say this, the only issue, as I pointed out with the Deh Cho Bridge, is the fact that there are questions asking why we really can’t fulfill the contract and it seems to be defer or delay or deny that opportunity. That motion just making sure that we can extend past the two o’clock deadline is just proof in itself that this government wants to make sure that the supplementary appropriation gets through and not be questioned at length, because the fact is we are not going to get these answers and they’re just hoping to wear it down.
It’s a real shame. The principles of consensus government work when they want it, and I feel quite offended that it’s not working when people like myself just want answers and an explanation. The public is demanding it and, quite frankly it’s a shame.
All it is about is asking why we can’t fulfill this contract. Explain why this process isn’t working. Explain why we have issues. I just wanted to put that on the record my serious concern about rushing this through. Although the motion was to extend hours until we finish, it’s still the principle of we can’t use fair process, and I feel as though I’m being denied this, as well as a lot of people are being denied this. I think that needs to be noted on the record. I thought a lot of people in this Assembly, all 19 in some manner or form, would have stood up and said to their people that we’d make sure we get answers. As Mr. Dolynny said, a $10 million project should deserve answers worthy of that price. It feels like we’re getting a $10 answer on a $10 million project.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Committee, are we agreed we are concluded general comments?
Agreed.
Thank you. I will go to Mr. Miltenberger for response.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank all the Members for their comments. If I could just reaffirm the track that we are on, in terms of capital. In 2008-2009 we had a $211 million budget. In 2009-2010 it was $328 million. In 2010-2011 it was $455 million. In 2012-2013 it’s $260 million. This coming year it’s going to be $75 million. There’s a substantial drop. We know we have a $3 billion infrastructure deficit that’s looming and we have to keep working on it. There are a lot of critical infrastructure pieces and development projects that have to be done. For example, last year Transportation’s budget was $140 million. This year it’s $29 million, in spite of the amount of work that’s out there to be done. The issue is we don’t have enough money to do all the work that is necessary to get done.
We recognize in this particular year that there have been some struggles. There have been some pressures that are unique, and we’re just about through those. We anticipate fully that next year, for two reasons, the carry-overs should be significantly diminished. One, the bridge will be done, and the other one we’ll only have $75 million worth of projects, which is almost miniscule compared to the last four years.
Just to reassure all the Members here, the Member for Yellowknife Centre indicated that we are working on the same tracks as the debate that’s unfolding in Ottawa where they are in fact invoking closure and want to limit debate. We, in fact, had a motion to extend the debate so that we could have a fulsome discussion. The opposite direction and opposite complaint that you’d think would be there in Ottawa, are here. We are not trying to limit debate. We will answer and we will make every attempt to answer every question, every request. We have indicated that we have had over my time an involvement with the bridge. I think it’s safe to say there’s been dozens of briefings. There was a detailed briefing provided on the $10 million as soon as we were physically in a position to move forward with that information and the first port of call was to the committee. We are committed to carry on that discussion.
If I can just quickly walk through the main areas. The carry-overs, if you look at them on average, if you just pick out the Public Works and Services out of the existing request, it’s about 22 percent worth of carry-overs. Transportation admittedly had a large burden. They have about $60 million of the money that’s being asked for is Department of Transportation carry-overs. We know those are all critical projects. Many of them are underway, if not all of them to some degree or another. The commitment is to get them done. We share the Members’ concerns that we want to in fact get those done.
I appreciate the support on the energy projects. Mr. Abernethy tabled some documents in the House yesterday, I think it was, about all the energy projects that the government is in. These are two more that will show their worth.
With regard to the $10 million, if I may add my own voice here, there were two choices here. We could carry on this project, let it go another year and another winter, and we would be here this time next year, hopefully with a bridge that was going to be concluded, also knowing that, as Mr. Ramsay has indicated, there was a potential between both parties of tens of millions of dollars of claims to be resolved and we would have been back here a year later with no bridge finished, looking for resources to conclude all the odds and ends and all these other pieces tied to the bridge, so that we could in fact conclude the project. We took the position that it is imperative at this point, given the delays already, to conclude the bridge. To do that we knew we had to come to an agreement to get the resources on the table, to get the manpower, the two shifts where we’re working 14 to 20 hours a day to get the work done, and as part of this package, negotiate a conclusion and agreement, that would take all these other claims off the table so they were not going to continue to bedevil the government or the contractor, and that we could focus on the job at hand, which is get the project done so that we can get it operational and we can move on collectively, as has been evidenced by the statements by most of the Members that we need to get this done so we can carry on with the other work. I can assure this Assembly that we are not negotiating to save face. I think it’s safe to say, for me anyway, in my mind, there’s no face left to save here on this bridge. The issue is getting the bridge done so that we can get it concluded and we have other work to do. It is way bigger than political face at this juncture, and it has always been bigger than political face. It’s getting this project done. It’s a critical project for the North and we want to get it done. Nobody’s asked to flippantly agree. This is not a shell game. We have had this whole process audited. It’s been reviewed. We’ve had, in fact, two or three audits over the course of the bridge project to ensure that all bases are covered. We will answer any questions. We will have all the discussion necessary, if the committee wants to talk about risk matrixes and all those issues. This project is about 90 percent or so complete. We are near the finish line. We could smell the barn, if we were horses. We want to get this job done. That’s the intent here.
The final one would be the $2.5 million. We had an extensive debate in this House last fall as we did the capital budget, and we came forward with the initial request for some money for this project. There were commitments made by the government, by Minister Ramsay, by myself, by the Premier that this money that we voted last fall and we’re voting now is to do the front-end work that will allow us to put the information on the table that committee is asking for so that we all can collectively make an informed decision. We also committed to there would be no deal signed, that we would come back with the numbers, and we would have that discussion. We know that the federal government is going to have to be approached, and we know there are all these things that have to be done, and we intend to do it in full consultation with the Members. We intend to honor that. This $2.5 million allows us to conclude that work so that we can, in fact, come back with that information. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Okay, committee, we will turn to Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1. Are we agreed to go to detail?
Agreed.
Okay, committee. Turn to page 5, please, 2012-2013, Supplementary Appropriation No. 1, (Infrastructure Expenditures), Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, community operations, not previously authorized, $9.867 million. Total department, not previously authorized, $9.867 million.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 6, Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, education and culture, not previously authorized, $147,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $147,000.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 7, Legislative Assembly, capital investment expenditures, office of the Clerk, not previously authorized, $88,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $88,000.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 8, Finance, capital investment expenditures, office of the controller general, not previously authorized, $661,000.
Agreed.
Office of the chief information officer, not previously authorized, $5,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $666,000.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Public Works and Services, capital investment expenditures, not previously authorized, asset management, not previously authorized, $6.320 million.
Agreed.
Petroleum products, not previously authorized, $309,000.
Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $6.629 million.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Health and Social Services, capital investment expenditures, health services programs, not previously authorized, $12.033 million.
Agreed.
Community health programs, not previously authorized, $91,000.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Total department, not previously authorized, $12.124 million.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 11, Justice, capital investment expenditures, court services, not previously authorized, $62,000.
Agreed.
Community justice and corrections, not previously authorized, $632,000.
Agreed.
Services to public, $283,000.
