Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not too sure who is going to take the question, either the Premier or the Minister of Transportation, but my question is directed at the revenues that we are going to have to drive to pay down the debt for the Deh Cho Bridge. They are going to be used as tolls on the Deh Cho Bridge, which I believe is somewhere in the range of $9 million. This government is going to put in about $4 million coming from the ferry operation plus $2.7 million or $2.2 million. Out of that, one thing I heard is we’re seeing a decrease in traffic on Highway No. 3. This decrease means that our revenues are going to be lower coming forward to pay down that debt. Does that mean the government may have to look at options such as an increase in the toll, currently at $6 a tonne, or come forward with a supp to offset that cost so they can pay down that deficit of, I believe, $9 million a year over 35 years? I’d just like to know the alternatives if we don’t have the traffic volumes to generate the tolls to pay the debt going forward over the next 35 years.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member is correct; the intent to cover the cost of the bridge was to be in the form of toll revenue which we expect will be about 50 percent of what the costs are and also the savings from the operation of the ferry service and the ice bridge, which at the time the calculation was around $1.7 million -- we expect that number is now over $3 million -- with also another contribution from our government of $2 million. That’s the plan. The actual for the first year of the cost of the interest and principal and operations of the bridge will be around $7.9 million.
I believe that this is an area we don’t have control over. If we’re not able to generate those revenues on traffic volumes, we will as a government have to pay those additional costs to ensure that we are able to pay down the debt going forward of $7.9 million. I’m just wondering, the issue that’s out there on the Taltson project, which with the Taltson project going into a diamond mine will take 2,000 vehicles off the Highway No. 3 system. Because of that situation which will decrease the volumes even more than what’s already there in traffic volumes, has that issue been discussed between the Department of Transportation and the Power Corporation in light of how you’re going to make up that difference if you lose those traffic volumes of 2,000 vehicles?
My understanding is that the calculations for traffic expectations were very conservative. We are now compiling to get some actuals and then looking at what the costs would be required. We expect there is some additional activity planned in this area and we look forward to that. We are currently looking at how accurate our calculations were that were made several years ago and we expect there is some room for change.
As I indicated, there are additional savings on the ferry and ice bridge that we are currently paying. Now, with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation not receiving the same amount of return we also are expecting some numbers that will result in a positive for paying down the debt. There are still some calculations that are being worked on.
Again, we are speculating on the numbers here, but I think it’s something that we have to do at some point, realizing that we have two options. One is to increase the tolls. The other is that the government will have to put more revenues in to offset the costs associated with paying down the debt. I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation, do we have any accurate numbers today on exactly what the traffic volumes are now and projected going forward, including the possibility of losing 2,000 vehicles here off these numbers going forward due to the Taltson project moving forward and the effect it will have in the next couple of years? I’d like to ask the Minister if that in-depth analysis has been done in light of the existing traffic volume decreases we’re seeing today.
The Member is referring to something that we’re trying to avoid right now. There is no calculation for something that’s not concrete in terms of a project that is certain. The Taltson project has not been something that’s been committed to and is not part of our forecast and has not been calculated in the traffic results. However, we expect that the formula that was used that has traffic volumes requiring tolls or paying tolls, commercial trucks, and the cost of operations of the current services, such as the ferry and ice bridge, along with a subsidy would suffice for covering the debt, which is $7.9 million in debt service plus the operational costs.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The time for question period has expired; however, I will allow the Member a final supplementary question. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a calculation this government has to do. We’re talking about 2,000 B-Trains taken off the system, which is tens of thousands of tonnes per B-Train, calculated by the $6 a tonne. That is a major means of revenue for the Deh Cho Bridge in tolls. If you lose that, it means you’re going to have to make it somewhere else. I’d like to ask the Minister if he could get his department to analyze that, hopefully consider that and bring it back to the House before we conclude our debate on this situation this week.
I suppose it’s possible to go through that exercise. Right now our calculations are based on the base amount of commercial traffic that comes through regardless of what the industry is requiring, especially the mines, which is fairly stable. We recognize that it’s probably down this year. We also measure the mine traffic which, again, fluctuates on a year-to-year basis, and we understand that number is down this year too.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time to try to incorporate a project that has not yet been brought forward for final approval or recognition is difficult. We also are in a difficult predicament when it comes to what new projects are going to be brought into the fold by the time the Taltson project kicks in. So there are a lot of things that would be very broad estimates that we are not calculating at this point. Thank you.
