Madam Chair, we have tried to indicate that that number was already there in initial appropriation and is now being expended and it is now being accounted for at this juncture with this carry-over request. Now it is time to use that. It is not going to be added to the project cost. It is already part of the project cost.
Madam Chair, so it is not added to the project cost, it is part of the project cost. I will have to analyze Hansard tomorrow to find out what exactly that meant.
Again, I am extremely confused and probably somewhat disappointed again with the way we are handling our large-scale projects, the way we are handling remediation work and our demolition work, and how we kind of peel it off and call it something else, and we don’t look at the total project as it is in terms of what did this project cost taxpayers. I will continue my championing of the system to show that we have to do things better. I am hoping that the Minister approves of that statement, is that it is confusing.
I am good with numbers, but I can tell you that, for the life of me, I have had to struggle with trying to understand how our Public Works and Services deals with these types of projects. It just does not make sense at all. I know that the Auditor General of Canada is also in my court and they have also asked those same questions. I will work with the colleagues I need to work with to hopefully bring some clarity as we move forward so we don’t repeat this type of endeavour with large-scale projects. At the end of the day, I think the public deserves to know and has to have transparency and clarity on where we are putting our money. Quite frankly, right now those two variables are not in the current process. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. I will take that as a comment. Education, Culture and Employment, capital investment expenditures, education and culture, not previously authorized, $5.94 million.
Agreed.
Thank you. Advanced education, not previously authorized, $240,000.
Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $6.18 million
Agreed.
Page 13, Transportation, capital investment expenditures, not previously authorized, airports, $5.068 million.
Agreed.
Highways, not previously authorized, $42.258 million. Mr. Dolynny.
Madam Chair, I will start my first line of questioning regarding the Deh Cho Bridge. We see a line entry here of $3.315 million. Can we get maybe some explanation as to… Is this new money? Is this holdback money? Is this to complete deficiencies? Is this to complete what many of us know that there have been some issues with the height railing? We know that we have some closures this summer to one lane. If we can get a little bit more explanation as to exactly what this $3.3 million is in the supplementary. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger.
Madam Chair, this money is carried over money, so it is not new money. I will ask Mr. Aumond if he can speak to some of the detail of what the money is going to be put to, the use it is going to be put. Thank you.
Mr. Aumond.
Madam Chair, the work will be undertaken to take care of seasonal deficiencies but also some electrical work, Texas gate, some bridge rail extension and some engineering and miscellaneous services as well. As the Minister said, this is not new money. It is money carried over from the previous year, last year.
Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Mr. Dolynny.
Madam Chair, I appreciate the deputy minister for clarifying that. The second question I have in this category is regarding the Ingraham Trail or the Giant Mine remediation, or we refer it to as the Highway No. 4 bypass area. There is a $17 million allocation. We were led to believe in the maps of distant past that this $17 million was earmarked from the Infrastructure Canada money. This was federal money assigned to enhance infrastructure across the Northwest Territories. It was part of a larger number that was earmarked for many other communities, townships and hamlets throughout the Northwest Territories. This money was put into budget in 2013-2014 or previous budget, and it appears that it’s up for a supplementary here and I’m not quite understanding with the terminology here. It sounds like there’s a different account that it’s coming from, or a different category that it’s being attributed to. So if I could get some clarity as to what exactly or why are we seeing the $17 million reappear today in this supplementary appropriation.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger.
When the Giant Mine Remediation Project was initiated, the GNWT’s share that we put on for a lot of the surface work, $23 million back in 2004-05, and as the remediation project proceeded, the issue of the road became relevant and to the fore. So what was a decision that was made, that $23 million was in O and M. So it was agreed that we would reprofile and reclassify $17 million of that $23 million to cover the cost of this road that’s being put in around Giant Mine. So it’s not detracting from other capital projects, it’s not being taken from a pot that was dedicated for other areas or other communities or other specific projects, it’s tied directly to the broader Giant Mine Remediation Project.
I’m probably going to have to perform some Magnum P.I. work on this project. I was led to believe that this money was Infrastructure Canada money and that only in the last number of years, that because of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, that this money was deemed remediation work and all of a sudden it was being categorized to a new pot of money.
My question still remains that the area of Yellowknife was earmarked for a $17 million project out of the Infrastructure Canada budget. It appears that this money, in my humble opinion, has now been redirected to another pot of money under remediation under Aboriginal and Northern Affairs, which then begs to ask where is our $17 million project, which should be earmarked for the Yellowknife area. I’m really concerned that if that’s indeed the case – again, I’m trying to follow the money – I think the people of Yellowknife need and deserve an explanation as to why would they be shortchanged a $17 million project if that money indeed was earmarked originally under Infrastructure Canada. Where is our project?
As much as I don’t like to disagree with Members, in this case the Member is categorically mistaken. The money that we’re talking about was voted and put aside back in 2004-05 as our part of the broader Giant Mine Remediation Project. That $23 million was taken, $17 million of that was in O and M, put it into capital to pay for this road.
I’m not sure exactly what project the Member is talking about that he thinks Yellowknife got shortchanged on. If it’s the bypass road, that was Build Canada money, but no one has been shortchanged. That money, that $17 million from out of the $23 million that we as a government put on the table as our share of the broader project is being spent exactly where it was appropriated to, which was to the Giant Mine Remediation Project. It just moved from O and M to capital and our liability goes down a commensurate $17 million by spending that money on the project.
Again, I’m not delusional in my thinking here. I do remember, and I do recall, and I did take extensive notes during previous budget periods.
Madam Chair, I’m going to leave it at that. I mean, I don’t want to waste more of committee’s time. I will investigate and I will report back to committee. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Next I have Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk about the amount of activity that happened on the winter roads, and of course myself and the Minister have personally experienced that 701-kilometre road trip from Fort Good Hope to Fort Simpson. The Minister was appreciated by the Sahtu people.
I wanted to ask about the capital infrastructure on what he has on the books. It’s something that would help with our safety in the Sahtu region. Would the bridge – and the bridge specifically that the Minister and I talked about – the bridge between Fort Good Hope and Norman Wells… The Minister, in his papers, talked about the Mackenzie Valley Winter Road Bridge Program. Is that in line with speaking about what we do about this bridge that is sitting and not being used but has over $1 million of infrastructure that is not being put to use? I am questioning the Minister on this one here.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The money identified here tied to winter roads is clearly going to be put to use, as the Member pointed out. They travelled the winter road last winter. There was a lot of traffic. It was heavily pounded out and, in fact, shut down at different times.
The issue of the Oscar Bridge, I would ask Minister Ramsay if he would want to speak specifically to the fate of that particular piece of infrastructure.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are going to continue to move forward with the dialogue with industry and community leaders in the Sahtu as we look for ways to enhance the winter road in the region until we get an all-weather road. We will have to continue to work together to build those relationships.
As to the Oscar Creek Bridge, we are hopeful that at some point in time we are going to be able to access federal infrastructure dollars, at which time we will be at a much better position to address issues like the Oscar Creek Bridge and other requirements on that winter road system in the central Mackenzie Valley and continue toward an all-weather road in the Mackenzie Valley. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the Ministers’ responses and note the activity could maybe be ramping up in a section in the Fort Good Hope area because of the parcels that are going to possibly be taken by the oil companies. There are already two that Shell is going to be working on in that area. I’m certainly looking forward to the Minister’s announcement if the federal government does help us with some federal infrastructure.
I also see some other issues with the Mackenzie Valley Highway environmental assessment issue coming up. I want to ask the Minister with regard to the activity and safety of the infrastructure that we are going to be putting on the Sahtu winter road that would secure the confidence of the people who use that road, that this is going to be sufficient and going to be enough to handle the loads of last year, close to 6,000 loads coming in in a short period of time to serve the oil companies. I’m looking forward to some level of confidence and security that the people who use these roads will say yes, there is enough infrastructure, given the money left in the government’s pockets, to ease people’s minds getting on the winter road and not having those thousands of loads coming through with some level of safety. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Three key points, if I may. The bill before us talks about putting to good use the carry-over, the money that didn’t get spent last year on a critical area. As we all agreed at the start of this Assembly, we would have two years of fiscal discipline and then in year three/four we would add $50 million to the infrastructure budget. So the capital plan is being referred to Members for their review prior to the fall session. It contains those resources so we will have to have that discussion with the Members.
Then the government, through Minister Ramsay, is at work talking to the federal government, along with Minister Robert C. McLeod on the MACA side, on renewal of the Build Canada Fund. If that comes to fruition and pays off, then we will have, as well, some additional resources. So while we have $3 billion in unmet needs which far outstrip our resources, those additional resources will be very helpful, and we’ll have the broad discussion about making sure they’re put to the best use.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Yakeleya, your time is up. Committee, you’re on page 13, highways, not previously authorized, $42.258 million. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to get confirmation that, first of all, the Deh Cho Bridge total cost will stay within the $202 million. Is that correct?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to the Minister. The other thing I’d like confirmation on is I understand that as a result of ATCON’s work and some mistakes they made or whatever, and their bankruptcy or pulling out of the project, there was a deficiency account established of about $13 million, and we are pulling from those funds the money to correct the work that’s needed to be corrected. Those are in addition to the $202 million, but it’s no cost to us. It’s a liability thing for ATCON, and that that amount is some part of that $13 million. Maybe the Minister can tell us about how much that is, if I’ve got that right.
The Member’s comments are accurate in terms of how that money fits into the overall budgetary scheme of things, that it’s tied to remediating any deficiencies tied to ATCON’s involvement in the project. It’s separate from the project.
I’ll ask the deputy if he wants to speak to the amount of money that has been expended. Then I will dig back into my memory. I think we’ve spent there, out of the $13 million, I think we’ve spent five, and tied to addressing deficiencies tied to ATCON’s involvement.
That’s all I had on the Deh Cho Bridge. Thank you for that confirmation there.
With respect to Highway No. 4, I see that we have lapsed a significant amount of money there, several million dollars. I guess my first question is: What was the budget for that reconstruction? What amount of that original budget was done?
I’m not sure if the Minister actually caught that question. I’d maybe ask if the question could be repeated. The Minister may have that number with him.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the Member could just repeat the beginning part of his question, I’d see if I have that number.
Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question was: What was the original budget for the reconstruction of Highway No. 4? I see we lapsed several million dollars and it’s being carried over and proposed here, but what was the original budget for the work that year?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The budget for the project is about $17 million. As for the budget for that year, I’d have to get that information for the Member.
I think this is the reconstruction of the Ingraham Trail and not the bypass of the Ingraham Trail. I guess my point is, here we are lapsing several million and in fact we know that the Detah road, which has been stopped at about 30 percent completion for several years now, really requires much less than what has been lapsed here in the order of a couple of million dollars for significant work to continue with maximum benefits accumulating to the community and to the road infrastructure. I am wondering if the Minister would commit as we go forward when there are lapses – it looks like there are – that they would be identified early on if they are not going to be able to do that work and get that work going on the Detah road with an experienced and enthusiastic crew that is ready to do that work. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the Member for his comments and his suggestions and note that for the record, unless the Minister wants to respond in any other specific way.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Minister Ramsay.
