Statements in Debates

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 4th Session (day 22)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few people I’d like to recognize, but first I’d like to start with the Pages here today. Chad Martin is from Mildred Hall School and he’s a constituent of Yellowknife Centre; as well as Miguel Gordon, who is a Mildred Hall student; and although not a constituent of Yellowknife Centre, Muhammad Awan is a Mildred Hall student. So I’d like to say, in some way, in some form the Mildred Hall students all belong to Yellowknife Centre, who I get to see regularly and I’m very proud to go to that school quite often as a parent of two kids that go there.

The other person...

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 4th Session (day 22)

When will we know if this will be a tender or a negotiated contract?

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 4th Session (day 22)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I completely disagree with the assertion of the Minister’s. This is, quite frankly, smoke and mirrors. By laying this information out in a way that we can’t get public consultation, I have been prohibited strictly from seeking information by this government because the words confidential have been stamped on all the information we’ve constantly been receiving in private briefings. This Minister should enlighten this House how he gave us the fullness of all information in a confidential manner, in a manner we can’t seek public information and guidance from this, to...

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 4th Session (day 22)

Is the Minister saying that now that we’ve printed this in a plain language document that that’s become a risk?

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 4th Session (day 22)

Thanks. Again, speaking about the process here – and that’s what I’ve been concerned about all along – yes, I asked for a plain language document in the House repeatedly last week to the Minister. Of course, he avoided answering the question the best he could, but what the public saw and what they responded to me was the fact that we needed a plain language document out there in the public, no matter how funny it seems to the Minister, so we can get these types of input and value on these projects, because some of the issues, I have to tell you, I’m not fully experienced in these areas. So I...

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 4th Session (day 22)

Mr. Chairman, I’m running out of time, and I know that Members will be moving a motion here shortly, so not to be too far in my anticipation, but on the $5 million, I will support, but at the same time, I do want to ask more questions during the $60 million portion.

That said, I’m just concerned about the way $5 million is being asked for this late in the game because it’s in this fiscal year. Quite frankly, the reflection in getting here is we are trying to make some type of financial commitment, contract, as quickly as possible. Everybody knows it won’t be spent by this fiscal year and that...

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 4th Session (day 22)

I am curious on how the department is familiar with construction techniques on this area of permafrost. As we all know, Highway No. 3 has its I’ll call it technical challenges rather than laden it with some description probably fair and certainly unfair. That said, the constant excuse I’ve heard was the reason Highway No. 3 is the way it is in its own state is the ice lenses. I believe it was interesting terminology picked out of the air a number of years ago to explain why the permafrost is fluxing and the matter of the ice lenses. Those were Department of Transportation words, so I don’t...

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 4th Session (day 22)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the first time I’ve spoken to this particular issue. I was going to parcel my comments on the $5 million and keep them separate from the $60 million portion, which is on the next supplementary appropriation. I can appreciate the fact that Members had to speak to both at the same time.

I’m certainly in a peculiar position when I think of this project, because, to be frank, I feel that not any one person, I should say it that way, but I feel, to some degree, like we’ve been painted into a corner that if we question the project, that we’ve been seen as questioning...

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 4th Session (day 22)

I’m not seeing the gap here. If we told everybody how much we have for this particular road estimate, our fine work all done. Of course, a $300 million road, everyone knows what it’s worth and we’re going to negotiate a contract. What’s to stop the joint venture from asking for, in all intents and purposes, the full $300 million?

Debates of , 17th Assembly, 4th Session (day 22)

I think I’m a little surprised, more so by the words “if we would like to.” How do we get it clear on the record here? Because the way he said it today made it sound like it was coming to the Assembly and it was a foregone conclusion that we would have a public discussion on this and a final vote, of course.

That said, what type of direction does the Premier need to ensure that we actually have a final vote on this particular issue before this Assembly?