Debates of May 10, 2007 (day 4)

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just with respect to the negotiations, we’re holding firm to a 30-day negotiating period right now. I can just say that at this point it’s not 100 percent either. The project can still fail if we don’t come to terms, but we’re really positive it’s still a 99 percent go at this point, Mr. Speaker. We’ll continue to update committee as this progresses. In fact, at the end of the 30-day period we would be prepared to give even that much more level of detail to committee at that point, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Final supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 52-15(6): Deh Cho Bridge Project

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In terms of timing, we are here until next Thursday. We don’t meet again until next August. I’d like to know if he could tell us when is that 30-day period. Maybe he could sneak that answer in and also answer the question as to whether he’s…He mentioned that the federal government has this project at the top of its list, but what is, are there any meetings proposed, are their officials meeting on this project, and could he give us a date on that? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Menicoche.

Further Return To Question 52-15(6): Deh Cho Bridge Project

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just for clarification, the negotiation is happening with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and, as government, we’re supportive of the initiatives of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, but we’re outside the process. We’re not really privy to their discussions. While in fact just last week the Premier had sent a letter to the Prime Minister himself saying, look, in terms of the federal government helping us with this project, it’s a good project for Canada, it’s a good project for northerners, and that’s the stage it is at, Mr. Speaker. We have had many, many meetings on this topic and we’re looking forward to progressing with the project. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier in terms of the very disturbing meeting I had with the Town of Norman Wells, also some of the Regular MLAs that pass through here, that shocking crisis that the town of Norman Wells is at the beck and call of Imperial Oil in terms of turning off their gas by April 2008, April 1st. Shame on Imperial Oil. I want to ask the Government of the Northwest Territories, Imperial Oil, asking Imperial Oil to come up here and justify why they made this move. Shame on Imperial Oil. I want to ask the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Premier, what is he doing to help the community of Norman Wells and the people of the Northwest Territories? Pipeline not good for me.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Premier, Mr. Handley.

Return To Question 53-15(6): Future Of Norman Wells Gas Field

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the deadline Imperial gave us, of course, is determined by the amount of gas that’s there. We know the Norman Wells field is a field that is gradually being depleted. That’s the challenge with fossil fuels, is that at some point they run out. So, Mr. Speaker, we will be asking Esso for more information on why it’s necessary to cut back on the supply to the town. My understanding is that they are providing fuel to the Power Corporation. However, Mr. Speaker, the alternatives are complex. We need to get more information and I’m sure that the denouement of this situation is going to be one that’s beneficial to everybody. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Yakeleya.

Supplementary To Question 53-15(6): Future Of Norman Wells Gas Field

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The town of Norman Wells was told that Imperial Oil were going to reduce their gas consumption in terms of supplying the town of Norman Wells. They were shocked that Imperial Oil said the reduction will be zero. Now that causes a huge crisis in my community of Norman Wells, in the region. Then Imperial Oil says, come on you guys, the pipeline is a good thing for us, sign on and let’s do something. How does Imperial Oil drag the people of Norman Wells through this, I don’t know what to call it, Mr. Speaker, but I’m asking can this government here demand to have the president of Imperial Oil come up here and meet with the Town of Norman Wells, meet with us and say is this how Imperial Oil does business with people in the Northwest Territories and hold them hostage to the community of Norman Wells? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 53-15(6): Future Of Norman Wells Gas Field

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, we want to meet with the town. I understand the town has hired a consultant. I understand our Department of Municipal and Community Affairs has been dealing with other departments in our government to figure out what’s the best solution for this problem we could face in April 2008. Mr. Speaker, in terms of Imperial Oil’s involvement, yes, we will let them know. I will raise this with them when I have opportunity and we will insist that they come and provide an explanation. I assume, Mr. Speaker, that they’ve already planned to do that in Norman Wells, but I can’t speak for them. However, we want to hear from them as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.

Supplementary To Question 53-15(6): Future Of Norman Wells Gas Field

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think Imperial Oil’s model, their way of thinking, is profit over people. That’s been there since 1920. Shame on them. It’s a crying shame that in this day and age Imperial Oil can do this to the people of the Northwest Territories. You know, Norman Wells is a prime example of Imperial Oil going in there, taking out what it has to do to benefit its company and leave the community. So I’m really, really angry that this could happen in this day and age. I’m asking the Government of the Northwest Territories in terms of how do we help the community of Norman Wells, you know, because Imperial Oil told them the cut-off date is April 1, 2008. I’m not too sure if that’s an April Fool’s joke or that’s a reality for the people of Norman Wells. I asked the Premier, through a letter, that he would get to meet the people in Norman Wells with the appropriate Ministers to see what can be done as soon as possible. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 53-15(6): Future Of Norman Wells Gas Field

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The appropriate government departments are already discussing this within our government along with the Power Corporation. It’s not as urgent with the Power Corporation because we do have a purchase agreement up to 2010 that’s firm, but we still have to look further ahead down the road. Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Member and this House that we are taking this seriously; we are collecting information and at the appropriate time, once we have our information, then we want to meet both with Imperial Oil and also with the Town of Norman Wells. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.

Supplementary To Question 53-15(6): Future Of Norman Wells Gas Field

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I understand also that the Government of Canada owns one-third of the Norman Wells field. You know, where are they in this business here in terms of helping out our people in the Northwest Territories? You know, the royalties that they collect in Norman Wells, the oilfield has produced billions of dollars for Imperial Oil so the board of directors and shareholders can sit on a nice cushy place in the southern parts of the States here. So, Mr. Speaker, again, I’m demanding that this government here ask the president of Imperial Oil to come up here and sit in this House with us and answer some questions that need to get done. They want to put the pipeline through, and right now a pipeline is not a good thing if they’re going to treat people in the communities of the Sahtu. So, again, Mr. Speaker, I ask if this government here, through the leadership of the Premier, to ask the president to come up, talk to the people in Norman Wells, talk to this Legislative Assembly, and say is this how you’re going to do business in the future. You know, it's David and Goliath time.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 53-15(6): Future Of Norman Wells Gas Field

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Government of Canada would just turn their one-third share over to us, it would be much easier to resolve this. But, Mr. Speaker, I can’t speak for the federal government and where they are on their share. I expect that Imperial is the operating partner and the majority partner, so they are calling the shots. Mr. Speaker, I will be getting more information on this one. We will be talking with Imperial on it; we will hear what they have to say and at that time decide when, where and how we should meet with the Town of Norman Wells. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, today in my Member’s statement I indicated that I think the Beaufort-Delta is being left out again with projects. I’m speaking in terms of the mention of a Deh Cho Bridge and everything over the last couple of days. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the new highways are the responsibility of the federal government, but at the same time with the recent announcement by the federal government about $25 million over seven years. My question is for the Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Menicoche. I understand that right now they’re still trying to find out how that money can be spent. So I’d like to ask the Minister, has his department determined what the stipulations are with regard to that funding, or can that funding be used to construct a 22-kilometre access road to Tuktoyaktuk from source 177? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. The honourable Minister for Transportation, Mr. Menicoche.

Return To Question 54-15(6): Funding For The Tuktoyaktuk Access Road To Gravel Source 177

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the Member that myself and this government, that we are doing nothing; that we are not saying no to the Inuvik-Tuk road. Some of the new initiatives that have been announced in the federal budget, the details are still being worked out and we’d like to see what they are so we can roll out the program. We’ve committed to the House and to committee that we’d like to work with you in identifying the priorities of where to allocate that money there, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, we have maintained, and will always maintain, that responsibility for new roads rests with the federal government. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Supplementary, Mr. Pokiak.

Supplementary To Question 54-15(6): Funding For The Tuktoyaktuk Access Road To Gravel Source 177

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister, has the government decided which priorities are in place right now with regard to spending that money and is the access road to source 177 to Tuk one of the highest priorities? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Menicoche.

Further Return To Question 54-15(6): Funding For The Tuktoyaktuk Access Road To Gravel Source 177

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d just like to say that the Premier and I are very supportive of the initiative that you continue to raise in this House. It is a good initiative of the honourable Member and something that we always support are ground base initiatives. That project specifically will be addressed in the fullness of time, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Supplementary, Mr. Pokiak.

Supplementary To Question 54-15(6): Funding For The Tuktoyaktuk Access Road To Gravel Source 177

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the Minister, has he had discussion with his Cabinet already to make sure that some of that $25 million that’s identified right now from the federal government will be allocated towards source 177 from Tuk? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Menicoche.

Further Return To Question 54-15(6): Funding For The Tuktoyaktuk Access Road To Gravel Source 177

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That particular project, source 177, is amongst the many priorities that are laying before us as Cabinet to decide on. Once again, we’ll work with committee in establishing the priorities as laid out by the guidelines of how we’re going to spend the money for the federal programming that has been announced. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Final supplementary, Mr. Pokiak.

Supplementary To Question 54-15(6): Funding For The Tuktoyaktuk Access Road To Gravel Source 177

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Minister providing information but again, I think, this is a gravel source that’s really required by the community and I think it’s really important that if government wants to help people build pads and build roads, access roads and stuff like that, I think for the community of Tuktoyaktuk, this is one issue that’s really important to their hearts and that it’s really important that they find the funds for the allocation from Tuk to Inuvik, the 22 kilometres. Thank you, Mr, Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Menicoche.

Further Return To Question 54-15(6): Funding For The Tuktoyaktuk Access Road To Gravel Source 177

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Our government and this department continue discussions with Inuvik-Tuk road committee and we are considering it seriously. In fact, we had provided the Hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk with $25,000 in the past and the federal government has committed some funding towards the engineering and survey work required for the road to source 177. So we’ve continued to move forward on this agenda item that is very important to the Member. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to continue with a line of questioning for the Minister of Transportation. Again it’s on the Deh Cho Bridge project and I’d like to certainly sign up to negotiate with this government. I mean, here the Minister talks about negotiations going on and these guys can’t even put a top level on what they’re willing to spend; what the tolls are going to be. It’s an open-ended negotiation. I think that’s what I haven’t heard from the government is what is the ceiling? Where are we going to go to? What are we prepared to spend? What are we willing to put the residents here at risk of paying in terms of consumer goods? What’s going to be the increase to consumer goods here in the North Slave region? So I’d like to, again, ask the Minister of Transportation, and I understand negotiations are going on, what is the ceiling? Is it an open-ended negotiation and we’re going to build a bridge at any cost? Is that what’s going to happen, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Menicoche.

Return To Question 55-15(6): Deh Cho Bridge Proposal

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As per the Deh Cho Bridge Act, we’ve committed to $6 per ton for the trucks per load plus inflationary costs over the years that come. As well, Mr. Speaker, we have committed a lot of the costs that it actually costs us to operate our ferries and ice bridges right now. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Supplementary To Question 55-15(6): Deh Cho Bridge Proposal

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’m still a little bit confused on this aspect of it, too. Yesterday in the sessional statement by the Premier, the Premier talked of a couple of things: the Deh Cho Bridge project on one hand and then on the other hand we talk of the Taltson expansion, which would take, in his sessional statement, an estimated 2,000 truckloads of fuel from going across that bridge. In my estimation, and the Minister said it earlier today, it’s $250 a truckload; that equates to over $1 million in lost revenue, lost whole revenue on that bridge. Has the government accounted for that lost revenue should the Taltson expansion go ahead? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Menicoche.

Further Return To Question 55-15(6): Deh Cho Bridge Proposal

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some of the discussion that we have been talking to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation with is, of course, still in our concession agreement, but some of the maximum costs that we are looking at is up to around $4 million a year annually to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Supplementary To Question 55-15(6): Deh Cho Bridge Proposal

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to get that figure of $4 million, and I guess it’s in Hansard now, so I’m not sure if it’s written in stone anywhere but that would be a good place to start, and I don’t think it should go over that, Mr. Speaker. I’d also like to ask a question to the Minister about risk. Should the toll revenue decrease $1 million a year five years from now, who’s going to absorb that $1 million in risk, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The time for question period has expired; however, I’ll allow this line of questioning to continue. Mr. Menicoche.

Further Return To Question 55-15(6): Deh Cho Bridge Proposal

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That level of detail is in the concession agreement as to risk factors, what happens if the federal government bans trucks altogether where do we even collect any money at all. Some of those details are in the concession agreement. That level of detail, I cannot state in this House at this moment, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.