Madam Chair, notwithstanding Rule 6(1), I move that Committee of the Whole continues sitting beyond the hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing and concluding consideration of Tabled Document 19-17(3), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2012-2013.
Thank you, committee, for your patience. We have determined that this motion is in order. The motion is on the floor. The motion is not debateable.
---Carried
We are on general comments. Is committee agreed that we are concluded general comments? Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. While clearly I won’t spend a lot of time, I just want to make reference to that last motion. I think that this is a simple example of government rushing it through. Knowing that I cannot talk for three days or whatnot is seriously unreasonable. I think that this is no different than an act by what’s happening in our own Parliament, whether shutting down debate or closing off reasonable discussion, and I think what’s moved today has shown that this supplementary appropriation will get through no matter what.
Quite frankly, as I said earlier and I continue to clearly say this, the only issue, as I pointed out with the Deh Cho Bridge, is the fact that there are questions asking why we really can’t fulfill the contract and it seems to be defer or delay or deny that opportunity. That motion just making sure that we can extend past the two o’clock deadline is just proof in itself that this government wants to make sure that the supplementary appropriation gets through and not be questioned at length, because the fact is we are not going to get these answers and they’re just hoping to wear it down.
It’s a real shame. The principles of consensus government work when they want it, and I feel quite offended that it’s not working when people like myself just want answers and an explanation. The public is demanding it and, quite frankly it’s a shame.
All it is about is asking why we can’t fulfill this contract. Explain why this process isn’t working. Explain why we have issues. I just wanted to put that on the record my serious concern about rushing this through. Although the motion was to extend hours until we finish, it’s still the principle of we can’t use fair process, and I feel as though I’m being denied this, as well as a lot of people are being denied this. I think that needs to be noted on the record. I thought a lot of people in this Assembly, all 19 in some manner or form, would have stood up and said to their people that we’d make sure we get answers. As Mr. Dolynny said, a $10 million project should deserve answers worthy of that price. It feels like we’re getting a $10 answer on a $10 million project.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Committee, are we agreed we are concluded general comments?
Agreed.
Thank you. I will go to Mr. Miltenberger for response.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank all the Members for their comments. If I could just reaffirm the track that we are on, in terms of capital. In 2008-2009 we had a $211 million budget. In 2009-2010 it was $328 million. In 2010-2011 it was $455 million. In 2012-2013 it’s $260 million. This coming year it’s going to be $75 million. There’s a substantial drop. We know we have a $3 billion infrastructure deficit that’s looming and we have to keep working on it. There are a lot of critical infrastructure pieces and development projects that have to be done. For example, last year Transportation’s budget was $140 million. This year it’s $29 million, in spite of the amount of work that’s out there to be done. The issue is we don’t have enough money to do all the work that is necessary to get done.
We recognize in this particular year that there have been some struggles. There have been some pressures that are unique, and we’re just about through those. We anticipate fully that next year, for two reasons, the carry-overs should be significantly diminished. One, the bridge will be done, and the other one we’ll only have $75 million worth of projects, which is almost miniscule compared to the last four years.
Just to reassure all the Members here, the Member for Yellowknife Centre indicated that we are working on the same tracks as the debate that’s unfolding in Ottawa where they are in fact invoking closure and want to limit debate. We, in fact, had a motion to extend the debate so that we could have a fulsome discussion. The opposite direction and opposite complaint that you’d think would be there in Ottawa, are here. We are not trying to limit debate. We will answer and we will make every attempt to answer every question, every request. We have indicated that we have had over my time an involvement with the bridge. I think it’s safe to say there’s been dozens of briefings. There was a detailed briefing provided on the $10 million as soon as we were physically in a position to move forward with that information and the first port of call was to the committee. We are committed to carry on that discussion.
If I can just quickly walk through the main areas. The carry-overs, if you look at them on average, if you just pick out the Public Works and Services out of the existing request, it’s about 22 percent worth of carry-overs. Transportation admittedly had a large burden. They have about $60 million of the money that’s being asked for is Department of Transportation carry-overs. We know those are all critical projects. Many of them are underway, if not all of them to some degree or another. The commitment is to get them done. We share the Members’ concerns that we want to in fact get those done.
I appreciate the support on the energy projects. Mr. Abernethy tabled some documents in the House yesterday, I think it was, about all the energy projects that the government is in. These are two more that will show their worth.
With regard to the $10 million, if I may add my own voice here, there were two choices here. We could carry on this project, let it go another year and another winter, and we would be here this time next year, hopefully with a bridge that was going to be concluded, also knowing that, as Mr. Ramsay has indicated, there was a potential between both parties of tens of millions of dollars of claims to be resolved and we would have been back here a year later with no bridge finished, looking for resources to conclude all the odds and ends and all these other pieces tied to the bridge, so that we could in fact conclude the project. We took the position that it is imperative at this point, given the delays already, to conclude the bridge. To do that we knew we had to come to an agreement to get the resources on the table, to get the manpower, the two shifts where we’re working 14 to 20 hours a day to get the work done, and as part of this package, negotiate a conclusion and agreement, that would take all these other claims off the table so they were not going to continue to bedevil the government or the contractor, and that we could focus on the job at hand, which is get the project done so that we can get it operational and we can move on collectively, as has been evidenced by the statements by most of the Members that we need to get this done so we can carry on with the other work. I can assure this Assembly that we are not negotiating to save face. I think it’s safe to say, for me anyway, in my mind, there’s no face left to save here on this bridge. The issue is getting the bridge done so that we can get it concluded and we have other work to do. It is way bigger than political face at this juncture, and it has always been bigger than political face. It’s getting this project done. It’s a critical project for the North and we want to get it done. Nobody’s asked to flippantly agree. This is not a shell game. We have had this whole process audited. It’s been reviewed. We’ve had, in fact, two or three audits over the course of the bridge project to ensure that all bases are covered. We will answer any questions. We will have all the discussion necessary, if the committee wants to talk about risk matrixes and all those issues. This project is about 90 percent or so complete. We are near the finish line. We could smell the barn, if we were horses. We want to get this job done. That’s the intent here.
The final one would be the $2.5 million. We had an extensive debate in this House last fall as we did the capital budget, and we came forward with the initial request for some money for this project. There were commitments made by the government, by Minister Ramsay, by myself, by the Premier that this money that we voted last fall and we’re voting now is to do the front-end work that will allow us to put the information on the table that committee is asking for so that we all can collectively make an informed decision. We also committed to there would be no deal signed, that we would come back with the numbers, and we would have that discussion. We know that the federal government is going to have to be approached, and we know there are all these things that have to be done, and we intend to do it in full consultation with the Members. We intend to honor that. This $2.5 million allows us to conclude that work so that we can, in fact, come back with that information. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Okay, committee, we will turn to Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1. Are we agreed to go to detail?
Agreed.
Okay, committee. Turn to page 5, please, 2012-2013, Supplementary Appropriation No. 1, (Infrastructure Expenditures), Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, community operations, not previously authorized, $9.867 million. Total department, not previously authorized, $9.867 million.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 6, Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, education and culture, not previously authorized, $147,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $147,000.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 7, Legislative Assembly, capital investment expenditures, office of the Clerk, not previously authorized, $88,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $88,000.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 8, Finance, capital investment expenditures, office of the controller general, not previously authorized, $661,000.
Agreed.
Office of the chief information officer, not previously authorized, $5,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $666,000.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Public Works and Services, capital investment expenditures, not previously authorized, asset management, not previously authorized, $6.320 million.
Agreed.
Petroleum products, not previously authorized, $309,000.
Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $6.629 million.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Health and Social Services, capital investment expenditures, health services programs, not previously authorized, $12.033 million.
Agreed.
Community health programs, not previously authorized, $91,000.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Total department, not previously authorized, $12.124 million.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 11, Justice, capital investment expenditures, court services, not previously authorized, $62,000.
Agreed.
Community justice and corrections, not previously authorized, $632,000.
Agreed.
Services to public, $283,000.
Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $977,000.
Agreed.
Thanks, committee. Page 12, Education, Culture and Employment, capital investment expenditures, not previously authorized, education and culture, not previously authorized, $11.496 million.
Agreed.
Advanced education, not previously authorized, $359,000.
Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $11.855 million.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 13, Transportation, capital investment expenditures, not previously authorized, airports, $8.880 million.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Highways, not previously authorized, $62.342 million. Mr. Hawkins.
