Mr. Speaker, in a previous answer to a question, the Premier basically threw out the challenge to have an open debate about the Deh Cho Bridge project. That’s like inviting us to a duel, you know, with no gun.
We’re absolutely bound by confidentiality; we can’t say anything. Here we are now — the poor suckers who got to read the concession agreement — and we’re sitting here trying to ask questions in the public interest, but we are bound by confidentiality because of the restrictions that were put on us. We cannot be transparent and open with the people of the Northwest Territories, who are extremely interested in this project.
The Premier challenges us to an open debate. How does he propose we could have an open debate when even we, as Members of this House, couldn't get information on this until after every significant date had passed? And yet we want the public to partake and watch us in an open debate? How does the Premier propose such a thing could happen when we can't get copies of the schedule? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, for the process of clarity, for the 16th Legislative Assembly, my offer is to debate the fact that we support the Deh Cho Bridge proceeding.
I'm not willing to debate schedule by schedule. We've never done that with any other contract in the Government of the Northwest Territories — at least, that I recall in my days — on something like that.
I've sat down with committee. I've provided them with all the information that has been requested. Yes, there are some outstanding schedules. Those lists of schedules that were outstanding were provided to the Members as well.
Part of the duties we have — as we heard earlier, regarding another bundled project within the Government of the Northwest Territories — is if we're going to come to a very public forum and debate what business is put on the line, then what business would be ready to put its numbers on the table, knowing that it could be undermined by the next proposal that comes forward?
One of the issues, or primary functions, of government is the way we do business. The fact is, in a consensus-style government, when you talk to other jurisdictions — the budget process, the contracting issues — the opposition may raise an issue, but all they can do is make an argument that it was a bad decision, because the majority rules in all cases.
We know a majority doesn't rule. That's why, in this style of government, we share all the information we can, and that does, by fact of consensus, put all Members under the confidentiality of the rules we operate with. If we want to stick to that system of governance, then we must honour the processes that are in place.
I’m trying to do my part with this whole process, so I offered up the opportunity: as the 16th Legislative Assembly, do we support this project or not? I’m not ready to go and debate line by line, as two of the Members would like to have done in this Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfathomable that this Premier can say we should have a debate on one simple question alone: do we support this project or not? How could we possibly say whether we support the project or not if we did not have access to the details of it? That's like saying, “I'll buy a house, and I won't look at it or inspect it, and I won't understand any of the terms of the financing, but I'll just….” It is “Do I want a house, or don't I want a house?” That's how simply he’s putting the question.
And to the fact that, yes, we do have the information — yes, we do have it now, after the fact. After the concession agreement is signed, yes, now we have it. After it’s too late to turn back, yes, now we have the cost-benefit analysis. The Premier admitted they went and signed the concession agreement without the benefit of the cost-benefit analysis that was updated.
Is the Premier suggesting that we could actually have a reasonable discussion about whether we support the bridge or not without the relevant facts related to the financing and all risks in this?
Mr. Speaker, the facts have been out on the table for, I would say — at least the latest increases — close to a year.
During the last government, when the project that we've heard so much about…. When the act was put in place and talked about a $55 million to $70 million project, it is now identified, and was identified in the 15th Assembly, as $165 million.
The government’s fiscal piece of that is the money from the ferries and ice crossing. In fact, the additional money required was made public — the $2.28 million — before any agreements were signed. Those fundamental pieces are there, have been public, and have been questioned in this House.
If the Member wants to debate, “Well, okay, let’s try to renegotiate the percentage the bank will charge us,” that's another factor that is part of a deal. But the key principles, the fundamentals, of this project are laid bare, I would say.
Mr. Speaker, I am an elected Member of this House. I've been here since the 14th Assembly. If I am not aware of the fact…. And it was — let’s be honest — two weeks ago tomorrow that we actually got a copy of the concession agreement. This is a $160 million project. I didn't know, until we got the concession agreement two weeks ago, that our government was in fact indemnifying, guaranteeing — call it whatever you want — a $160 million loan. I didn't know that. I’m a Member of this Legislative Assembly and I didn't know. How could the public possibly say whether or not they support this project?
To the point that everything has been completely laid out there: will the Premier agree and concede that this information, which is extremely significant, has never been made public — not to the public, let alone the Members of this Assembly — until two weeks ago?
Mr. Speaker, she was waving a piece of paper there. I don't know what I would be agreeing to, if that's a briefing note from Research or an active part of the concession agreement, which would be problematic.
The fact is, the fundamentals that the Government of the Northwest Territories needs to be concerned about, and is concerned about…. That's why we have entered into this long process of ensuring and double-checking. In fact, the lending organizations themselves have followed through this. An independent engineer…. We had an opinion lawyer on the actual process of how our FAA worked and so on and so forth.
The process has been there. The critical numbers we know about. The $165 million has been known about. Tolls will pay a part of that. We will pay the other part. That's been known. And we've also known that it is set at a rate that would grow according to, I believe, the 2005 dollar value escalated at that point, going forward. So that's forced growth as we deal with it in every other business that we do.
To the simple fact: the concession agreement has been made public, or given to Members, after they requested it from myself, as Premier of the 16th Legislative Assembly. I've honoured that commitment. But the fundamentals of that project have been public from well before the 16th Assembly election.
Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the many pressing needs of the people of the Northwest Territories for everything from better education, to homes and houses in our communities, to health services — we have no doctors going into Nunakput, we heard today — in view of all those pressing needs, does the Premier not think that he has a duty to very clearly tell people, before we commit to it, that this government was entering into an obligation and a liability for $165 million?
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Government of the Northwest Territories would backstop this project has been known from the early days of the fact that the act was being discussed. That is why an act was put in place, because under existing processes, it would be very difficult to deal with a project of this nature. The fact that we're trying to get P3 money from the federal government, to try to help this project along….
We realize, and I would be negligent in my duty if, looking at the numbers, standing up and giving the message to the people of the Territories, “We're going to have to live within our means.” Look at this project. Those numbers have been available. We know that it’s in the neighbourhood of $4 million, when you take the ferry crossing, ice crossing, and the additional amount that was made public, to carry on above and beyond the tolls that are established. That is something that would be looked at.
The fact is that the majority of vehicles coming across that bridge would be from industry, and they would be paying their share through this process. If we didn't have this process, then we would be looking at trying to fund it internally from what we have. In that case, we would have to compete with the rest of the projects in the Territories. Thank you.
