Debates of May 17, 2007 (day 9)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the Deh Cho Bridge project is no longer expected to be self-financing and will require ongoing investment by the Government of the Northwest Territories;

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada has not committed to infrastructure funding for the Deh Cho Bridge project;

AND WHEREAS the potential impacts of the Deh Cho Bridge on the cost of living for Yellowknife, the Tlicho communities and the Akaitcho communities are unclear;

AND WHEREAS the exact cost of financing the Deh Cho Bridge to the Government of the Northwest Territories has not been provided to Regular Members;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Sahtu, that this Legislative Assembly strongly recommends the government not enter into a binding agreement committing it to the Deh Cho Bridge project until it has provided Regular Members with:

an up-to-date analysis of the expected cost of living impacts of the bridge on Yellowknife, the Tlicho communities and the Akaitcho communities;

the estimated social impacts and economic benefits for the community of Fort Providence; and

the exact total cost of the Deh Cho Bridge to the Government of the Northwest Territories;

and given Regular Members an opportunity to comment on whether the bridge should proceed based on this information.

Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Motion is on the floor. Motion is in order. To the motion. Honourable Member for Kam Lake, Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. This is an issue that has garnered much discussion amongst Members of this House over the past week and a half since we've been back in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I want to be clear, and state again for the record, that in no way am I opposed to a bridge across the Mackenzie River at Fort Providence. That's not the onus of this motion. The onus of this motion, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the project has changed. It has changed tremendously. It has gone from a self-financing model five years ago to one that will now need an additional at least $2 million more in government funds on a yearly basis to proceed.

This motion is about transparency, Mr. Speaker. It's about accountability; it's about moving things forward by working together, and I do have some concerns on how exactly the bridge project jumped the queue for priorities of the government. It's interesting how that happens when we've never had a debate in this House in the four years I've been here on what are the big infrastructure priorities here. We've never had the debate. There are so many competing interests out there, like the Mackenzie Valley highway, chipsealing of Highway No. 5, the road to gravel source 177 near Tuk, the extension of Highway No. 4 to Gordon Lake, the Tuk-Inuvik highway. There are a number of competing priorities out there. There are a number of competing priorities out there, Mr. Speaker. Why the urgency to move this forward right now?

Mr. Speaker, I'll be clear on this: All along, in the three and a half years, that loan guarantee to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation has been increased four or five times. Every time the government would come back to Regular Members saying we've got to get some federal money to get this bridge to go ahead, there has to be federal money. So, Mr. Speaker, it was very surprising when the Premier announced in his sessional statement that the bridge was going to go ahead.

Very strange.

It was odd and it left a lot of questions unanswered. Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate, I really do appreciate the fact that the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation is in negotiations. Those numbers, those details are secret right now. But what this motion does, Mr. Speaker, is it asks the government, before they enter into any agreement that's going to bind the next government and every government for 35 years after that to spending public funds, it should come back here, it should show us what the potential impact is on the cost of living in Yellowknife, the Tlicho communities and the Akaitcho communities; it should also show us what the total cost is going to be of this bridge.

Mr. Speaker, we've never had a debate and that's the sad reality of this. This government, the 15th Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, has never had a debate about a Deh Cho Bridge, not since I've been here. Hopefully this motion today will get out there, it will allow Members to stand up to talk about the Deh Cho Bridge, and that's a good thing, Mr. Speaker. We're here, these are public funds, we need to have some accountability, it needs to be as transparent a transaction as it possibly can be.

I would encourage Members to support this motion. Again, it doesn't say don't build the bridge. It says when you're done negotiations, come back to us. Let us see what we are getting ourselves into. I don't think that's too much to ask, Mr. Speaker. So with that, I'll close with these opening comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, am going to support this motion here, as Mr. Ramsay has indicated, in terms of having some transparency in this government in terms of having some discussion. I, too, see the benefits of the Deh Cho Bridge being built across the Mackenzie River, as I also have aspirations for a Great Bear River bridge being built across our land, and other bridges that need to be built down the Mackenzie Valley here.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, was quite amazed how this project received quite a lot of attention in the last couple of weeks. I know we have gotten some other briefings in some other rooms on this project here, and the reason for this is it's all of a sudden we're deciding to build it. Well, we in the smaller communities are asking for special initiatives to be built in our regions such as other programs we could list off, but, Mr. Speaker, that's not the point here. The point is that we want some open, transparent discussions on mega projects. This is not just Fort Providence or areas around Yellowknife. This is a Northwest Territories project. When you look at projects down the Mackenzie Valley, in the Gwich'in or the Beaufort-Delta or the Sahtu, we seem to have that, well, it's a territorial project, we have to have some discussion. This one is a P3 project that's being negotiated with the community of Fort Providence under the corporate act that gives them some legal authority, legal powers, to work on this. But it's a Northwest Territories project, also. Mr. Speaker, the things I'd like to look at is if you change the physical landscape of the Mackenzie River, you know you change the people, you change the way of life, and this bridge here will certainly do that to the people in Fort Providence who are on ground zero. What are some of the things we could look out for them in terms of if this is a project that is being built in one of our small communities, are we preparing ourselves for this community, because it's at ground zero, for lots of social impacts, for the economic benefits that would come off this project? It's just like any other projects I have witnessed in our region. There are good impacts and then there are also some negative impacts in the region. So that's the thing I wanted to ask this government here in terms of how are we preparing the people and the way of life. I mean there are things in there that said they have the environmental and the water licence approved, but the way of life for the people on the river here. So those things I want to look at, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things that I heard from the Members here is in terms of the break-up of the Mackenzie River and how it puts some hardships onto some of the people outside the area that use the ferry, such as the city of Yellowknife and Providence and some of the Tlicho communities, even the areas around the Nahendeh. Our communities in the Sahtu are isolated pretty well, in terms of that type of transportation, for about eight months. We just don't seem to have a priority to have them catch up to the other regions in terms of this type of infrastructure. There's lots of things we could do, so I'm very surprised as to how this project got bumped right up without any type of secure commitment from the federal government and we're going to pay one way or another.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the amendment. The honourable Member from Nunakput, Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In regards to the amendment to add include the general public, I think it’s important that adding the amendment will include transparency not only to our Members on this side and to Members on that side, but also to all the people in the Northwest Territories with regard to the Deh Cho Bridge project. So I think, Mr. Speaker, that adding this amendment will give transparency, like I say. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. To the amendment. The honourable Member from Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to mention to the amendment here, by adding the general public, to my knowledge there has not been a general public information session on the Deh Cho Bridge since 2003 in Yellowknife. Now I’m not sure exactly about other communities like in Behchoko or Lutselk’e or any of the other communities in the North Slave region, but that hasn’t happened. So I think it’s important that the public gets a chance to see the numbers as well and they have a chance to see if there’s going to be an impact on the cost of living. So I certainly am supportive of the amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the amendment. The honourable Member from Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I will support the amendment. I think it is important to get public opinion on this and, hey, there’s an election campaign coming. What a great election issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the amendment.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

To the motion, as amended. The honourable Member from Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I don’t know if we need a bridge, I don’t know if the Deh Cho Bridge is a priority of northerners. I suggest that we have some more consultation to ascertain the answer to those questions and I’m not sure if we’re not just jumping in because this Legislative Assembly is coming to a close. I don’t know what the panic is all of a sudden on the bridge, but I want to say I do support the Deh Cho Bridge myself because it’s good for Hay River and it’s close enough to Hay River that there’s going to be some economic activity for Hay River around the construction of this bridge. I’m looking forward to that and I’d like to see that pre-cast concrete forms or pieces that they need to build for the deck, I’d like to see that plant located in Hay River. So we’ll be lobbying for that.

So I am in agreement, in principle, with the idea of a bridge, but the questions raised in this motion are valid questions. When we started off, when we passed the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation Act, this was a $70 million project. Now it’s a $150 million project and it’s just good business, it’s just good government, it just makes sense to reconfirm our business case and then all those good and valid arguments can be raised. If we wait, it’s going to cost more and the inflation is going to drive the price up and we can just have that discussion and enter into this feeling very confidently that we’re doing the right thing as opposed to just jumping in at the deep end just because this Assembly is coming to a close and we think that somehow the time is of the essence. I think we could just take time to answer those questions. The government can come back with the answers to those questions very, very quickly if they choose to. So this isn’t necessarily something that would delay a decision either. So I would encourage the government to answer these questions and I support the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the amended motion. The honourable Member from Tu Nedhe, Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of this motion, but I have to agree with some of my colleagues here. I do support in principle that we could use a bridge, but I do support this motion as amended because, as various other Members have pointed out, it does make us more accountable and more transparent; more importantly, it makes us more responsible to the electorate. As far as I can see, this bridge is going to be paid for by all residents of the NWT over the next 35 or 40 years and I think it’s to those residents that we owe all the transparent information that we can give them to ensure that we’re making a really informed and responsible decision in that spending over the next 35 years that they’re going to be out of pocket with.

So, Mr. Speaker, we, here in the northern part of the NWT and Yellowknife, the Tlicho, Providence, the communities, you know, we’ve lived with the ferry since day one and even beyond that. I don’t see anybody in Yellowknife, for instance, complaining that they’re out of pocket in the cost of living as compared to Hay River or south of the lake because we don’t have a bridge. To me, through this motion, I’d like to see the government show me that there is evidence that the people up here in the northern part of the NWT with the connection of the bridge is going to make life all that much sweeter and cheaper for everybody here. We know houses are skyrocketing north and south of the lake. It’s pretty much all relative where we are and I just can’t support a simple notion that a $150 million or $160 million bridge is going to make things all that much better here, and people are going to have more money to spend, and it’s going to be easier for industry to come here and work in the northern regions with the bridge in place, because all we’re looking at really is three weeks to a month that we’re out. We’re innovative and creative here in the NWT and we always find ways, cheaper ways of working to remain sustainable. So when the government does come back and gives us some impact benefits analysis, a cost of living analysis that shows we could really benefit over the long run, gee whiz, I’ll stand behind them 110 percent, 1,000 percent, wherever you want. But right now I do like the idea of a bridge. I’m not just going to fully endorse it just because of the fact that it’s a good idea. I’d like to see that the numbers do show that we will have savings over the long term and people will benefit over the long term. I’ll just leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. To the motion, as amended. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will stand up to support this motion as amended. When the Premier made his sessional statement it became clear that he announced that the project will move ahead. I did get some calls from back home on why this government should invest $130 million in this Deh Cho Bridge.

Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, I think that this government at times would think that Ottawa is not listening to us when we do talk about issues that affect us. What’s more important I think in my riding back in the Sahtu and Beaufort-Delta, we really feel left out in terms of projects that we think are important. To go ahead and decide, you know, let’s go ahead with the Deh Cho Bridge, it really causes disappointment back home in terms of infrastructure that’s required.

In regard to the amount of time down here that people have to be without, or what you call a certain link from south to north, you’re only looking at four weeks in a year. Take a look at back home. Once the ice road goes in in mid-May, we have to rely on the airlines right until mid-December when the ice road is open again. When you take a look at the time span, it’s costly for us.

So I like the motion that’s put forward because, like Mr. Ramsay said, we’re not trying to stop this bridge, but all we want is more information with regard to the total costing of the bridge and I really think it’s important that the Members on that side really take consideration of this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. To the motion, as amended. The honourable Member from Range Lake, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to enter into this debate today and I’d like to thank the Members for bringing the motion forward. I’d like to start off by saying I do have concerns about this motion. I like the fact that we’re doing the debate, but I do have concerns about the motion in that it sort of casts a little bit of dark shadow on something I think is great news and a great project and something that we should all get behind 1,000 percent. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the kind of innovative, visionary, a big action item that governments should do more of. We should build the roads all the way to Tuktoyaktuk. We should build every bridge in Sahtu…

Hear! Hear!

---Applause

That’s what governments do. Governments build schools, they build hospitals, they build roads. We don’t always ask what’s in it for us in terms of profit. These are public infrastructure and governments are supposed to do that.

Mr. Speaker, for anybody to say that we are sort of putting this in the front of the queue at the expense of another, has not done enough research. Mr. Speaker, people out there expect us to act on some of the things. This has been on the books for eight years. I will submit to you, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the rare projects that actually went through a legislative review process. That hasn’t been done for any school infrastructure or courthouse; that’s not a normal process. This was a huge item. This was a decision made by the government eight years ago that we would do this. This has been worked on ever since and it’s about time that we get off our butts and make some decisions.

Mr. Speaker, when this discussion has been going on, I know communities are divided, there’s not unanimous support, but I could tell you many people are saying build that bridge. Mr. Speaker, some people ask what is the urgency. Mr. Speaker, if you go to the Department of Indian Affairs' website, there is a little article about the Deh Cho project and you’ll learn from that, I mean I’m sure it’s everywhere too and I’ve mentioned this before, the highway from the NWT border to Yellowknife started in 1968. It took 40 years to build. Forty years ago if somebody said we’re going to build this highway and it’s going to cost $540 million in 2007 dollars, everybody would have said take a hike, that is too expensive, let’s study this thing to death, let’s see if we can afford it. Mr. Speaker, that’s exactly what we’re doing. In 1975, the estimate for the bridge was $25 million. At the $150 million estimated, that is quite reasonable 30 years later.

So I know I can appreciate some Members in this House that are worried that $150 million going into the Deh Cho Bridge over North Slave is going to somehow take away money for their projects. I have to tell you -- and I wish the government would do a better job of explaining that -- that is not what is going to happen. We’re not taking away $150 million from the government capital budget and plunking it on the North Slave for the benefit of Yellowknife. That is not what is happening. We don’t have that money in the capital budget. What is happening is we have a 3P project, it’s a great agreement, we have equity partners who are going to do the financing and the government is going to spend the money they normally spend anyway on ferry delivery and associated costs.

Mr. Speaker, I will give you the details, Mr. Speaker, for those who are out there who are being fed misinformation and fear about this Deh Cho project, Mr. Speaker, the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation will raise sufficient equity and debt financing to design, finance and construct the bridge to agreed upon standards. The Government of the Northwest Territories and Deh Cho Bridge Corporation will enter into an agreement for a 35-year concession period, during which the DBC will own, operate and maintain the bridge. During this period, the GNWT will pay a contribution from ongoing ferry ice bridge savings approximately $1.5 million annually, but it’s inflating. The GNWT will also collect and pay a toll on commercial vehicles crossing the bridge, approximately $3 million annually, increasing with traffic and inflation. Mr. Speaker, total revenue, which was estimated a few years back to be about $4.5 million in year one, will be used to service and reduce the debt, operate and maintain the bridge and provide a return on shareholders’ equity. Annual costs will include the debt servicing, interest and principal of approximately $3 million, and operations and maintenance of approximately half a million for a total year one cost of approximately $3.5 million. The key word here is inflation and let’s talk about inflation and that’s where the urgency comes from.

Mr. Speaker, eight years ago when this bridge was an idea and it was estimated at about $30 million, no one in Yellowknife could have envisioned that we would look at a real estate guide for $500,000 and not blink. Eight years ago we could have never imagined that. In eight years, Mr. Speaker, the prices in Yellowknife and North Slave have at least doubled if not went up by at least twice. So of course there’s inflationary pressure on this project. For any Members to suggest that we need to revisit this whole thing because the cost of living went up by 100 percent, I don’t understand that. The nature of the project has not changed and I’m trying to tell you that this Assembly had gone through a thorough review. I do support that this government has to do a better job of explaining to the people the content of this project, but to say that because the cost of building this project and financing this project has gone up a little that it changes the nature of the project is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I have a problem with this motion because that’s what it does. It makes it sound like we’re sort of hoodwinking a project under the knowledge of the people. That’s not the case, Mr. Speaker. When you’re doing a cost and benefits analysis, the motion suggests we’ve got to look at the cost benefit analysis that suggests that this bridge will somehow increase the cost of living for people in Yellowknife. I want to tell you, once again, when I was a member of GED, we did public hearings through the Territories and in Yellowknife about Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and people have said, and the trucking associations or the Co-op, all the grocers, they have told us that having no bridge over the Mackenzie River is increasing the costs of doing business in the North. I’m telling you eight years later, and the cost of living has gone up in every other way, the cost of not having the bridge is very, very high. I support the bridge 1,000 percent because I believe…

---Applause

…I believe in my heart that this bridge will reduce the cost of living for Yellowknifers and put everybody who lives in the North, and let me say when you go to Wal-Mart I see more people from outside communities and, may I add, Mr. Speaker, that it will reduce the cost of living for everybody in the Northwest Territories.

Right. Cheers to Yellowknife.

---Applause

Mr. Speaker, I have indicated many a time, not having access because of the ice break-up in the springtime and in the fall, it could amount anywhere between six to eight weeks in a year and I know and I appreciate that in many communities that’s the state of being all year round. I appreciate that and I believe they should get the bridge too. That’s not to say that Yellowknife should not get that. We have 20,000 people and the businesses and all the services we provide that get closed down twice a year and there is a cost to that, Mr. Speaker. The trucking companies pay extra money when they have to come to Yellowknife, not just a delay in time, there’s an extra premium for having to drive here, Mr. Speaker. The businesses all over Yellowknife have to store extra inventory to get ready. The freeze-up and the spring break-up is not pre-determined; nobody knows when that’s going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, so there is a lot of cost in not having this and we need to understand that. It’s about time that the Members of this House consider the fact that not having the bridge is increasing the cost of living for the residents and businesses of Yellowknife, and for that reason I cannot understand, for the life of me, why all the MLAs from Yellowknife are not getting behind 1,000 percent for this project.

Mr. Speaker, if you try to do a house renovation…Excuse me, I can’t hear. Mr. Speaker, I have to speak louder and louder because I can’t hear what I am saying. Mr. Speaker, during the spring thaw and break-up, there are lots of things that you cannot get. This past three or four months, all the fresh stuff, all the milk, all have to be flown in. There is a cost to that. I know that happens in other communities, so I support the bridge for everybody else.

Mr. Speaker, let me just conclude by saying…Mr. Speaker, let me just say…

Pass me a napkin, please.

Mr. Speaker…Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying, if I may, if I may conclude by saying…

Go for it, Sandy!

Geez, Mr. Speaker, what I want to tell you is this project has had more review, and more input, and more study, and more effort than any other project we know. It has gone through a lengthy process. Oh yes, and there is a benefit to Fort Providence area and I understand the Member from Sahtu said talking to his family they don’t know what this project is…

Shame.

But, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, I have been through many, many briefings where the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and the Community Alliance sees this as a great opportunity for them to partake in all the activities that are going on in North Slave area that they have not been able to take advantage of. They’re not near the diamond mines, they’re not near anywhere in the pipeline corridor, this is going to be a P3 partnership project where they will be able to get some profit out of this so that they can spend that money to invest in their communities. Anybody who questions about the value of this project for that community should go and talk to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and get an update on that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this was reviewed and at some point the legislators who are voted in to do the job on behalf of the people and to make decisions and get some stuff done, it’s time to do that. This has been on the books for eight years.

Hear! Hear!

To say in all the three bullets here, studying the cost of living issues, it suggests that somehow this bridge will increase the cost of living, and this is why I had to do the whole song and dance about the fact that in fact the case is completely reverse, the case is completely reverse. This bridge will reduce the cost of living for the North and for Yellowknife and the surrounding area. We have to do everything we can, it will benefit everybody, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have to do something to avoid a situation that we had earlier in the month when we are at risk of running out of fuel to supply our community, Mr. Speaker.

Float planes.

Most importantly, if we don’t do this, we are increasing the chance of Nunavut going ahead with the port in Keewatin. Mr. Speaker, surely Members would not think that it’s better off for North Slave to not have a bridge and make it favourable for Nunavut. So, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the philosophy and the pretext of this motion because it does not do what I think we all should do, which is get behind this bridge 1,000 percent because it’s going to benefit us and it’s going to cost less doing it this way than any other way and this is the best time to do it than any other time we will find for the next 35 years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Ms. Lee. To the motion, as amended. The honourable Member from Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, I’d like to indicate that I’m prepared to arm wrestle the Member for Hay River South for the pre-cast concrete plant…

---Applause

I’d love to see that.

I’d like to offer my commiserations and condolences to the supreme irritation the Member from Range Lake must go through. We’ve not been able to get her avocados and her papayas…

---Laughter

…as freshly as she would like.

Oooh.

Sour grapes.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the Member made a comment that this motion somehow casts a dark shadow over the bridge project. In fact, the darkness that has shrouded and has cloaked this project is the lack of information and involvement of the Regular Members and the intent of this motion is to cast some light and lift that shroud…

Yeah.

---Applause

…and cloak of darkness that surrounds this project. Everybody here says they support the project. We are talking about a case of due diligence. The other concern I have, Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the discussion and I followed the debate in the last couple weeks is the 3P project may now only be a 1P project where the Government of the Northwest Territories is, in fact, carrying all the costs, and all the liability, and all the responsibility, and all the risk and in fact becomes a government project.

One hundred and fifty million.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good motion and I think we should get that information and the people should know this and they should have the comfort that this is being done. The landscape and ground has changed under which the initial plans were made to build this bridge. So yes, the bridge is a good project and it’s been on the books for eight years…

Eight years.

---Applause