I was previously directing my questions to the Premier on the Deh Cho Bridge. Maybe I should be directing them to the Minister of Transportation.
My questions are with respect to the $9 million loan guarantee we put in place. Were we privy to what the $9 million to date was actually spent on? Did we have a role to play in approving what that initial $9 million to date was spent on?
In the area of the guarantee itself, the guarantee is something that’s been in the process, has been updated a number of times, through the work of this government in the sense of the relationship with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. They’ve been working with the bank.
That guarantee doesn't kick in unless the bank itself calls that loan. For us to have a direct involvement in what they’ve spent on, what areas they’ve done, that would be limited. I don't have that information. But we do stand behind that guarantee until it gets called. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, this loan guarantee started off at about $3 million, and it was extended and increased at several different points. I would find it very unusual if a public government could guarantee a loan for something where they did not have any say or control or knowledge of what it was being used for and that they would not be at the table.
Do we want to go from $3 million to $6 million to $9 million? Wouldn't the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation have had to come back to our government and justify an increase in our loan guarantee with what it was that they were spending the money on?
Mr. Speaker, yes, when they came forward with requests for increases, they did have to justify why we would want to do that and why we would carry it forward to the Assembly for approvals on supplementary requirements.
You can go back to the supplementary appropriations to see when loan guarantees were put in place or increased through operations of the House.
The actual work done was bridge design, looking at those areas. No doubt, lots of lawyers’ fees on the negotiations process with banks and so on.
There is a list. We know what they were working on. We were knowledgeable of that. When they came forward for further substantiation or requests for increases, we had to ensure we had the information if we would agree that we would increase that loan guarantee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd be interested in knowing who approved the loan guarantees, because let’s be very clear: I was never part of a decision to approve a loan guarantee.
Under the Financial Administration Act, when a loan guarantee is put in place or is increased, there is an obligation to notify Members, but I don't ever recall voting on the increase to the loan guarantee. So somebody must have been acting on our behalf in the interests of the government and in the public interest to have approved those. I'd like to know who that was. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the process of loan guarantees is done through the Financial Management Board, notification to Members. If there's an actual expenditure that occurs as a result of that, that would fall to the supplementary appropriation that comes to this House. I'd have to go back to look, because at one point the interest had to be paid out as part of the process. So I’m not sure if that came to the House or not, but I recall some debate on it. Thank you.
Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you. You know, to the public that's listening to this, the semantics here are off. Let’s be very clear: there is a vast difference between approving and being advised of or being notified of. I want to tell you that that's all that was going on for us over here: we were notified of it. We did not approve of it. Let’s be very clear. I mean, just because we were notified of it doesn't mean we agreed with it.
I'd like the Premier to clearly confirm that, in fact, the FMB had the authority to extend the loan guarantee and increase it on the grounds of notification to Members only.
Mr. Speaker, the Member is correct in the fact that any loan guarantee established falls under the authority of the FMB. The process also lays out the notification of Members, and that process is followed.
The reference I made to a potential supplementary appropriation dealt with one piece, a small piece, of that, but all the information would have been made available. I'll have to confirm that. I'm going on memory at this point. Thank you.
