I move that consideration of Tabled Document 49-17(4), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2012-2013, be now concluded and that Tabled Document 49-17(4) be reported and recommended as ready for further consideration in formal session through the form of an appropriation bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The motion is being circulated.
---Carried
Mr. Menicoche, what is the wish of committee?
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Committee wishes to consider Tabled Document 50, Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2013-2014.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Okay, committee, would the Minister have any opening comments?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m here to present Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2013-2014.
This document provides for an increase of $60 million for capital investment expenditures in the 2013-2014 fiscal year. Supplementary funding is for the Department of Transportation for the construction of the Inuvik-Tuktoyaktuk Highway Project, a cost-shared project with the federal government.
I’m prepared to review the details of the supplementary estimates document. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Miltenberger, do you have witnesses you’d like to bring into the Chamber?
No, they’re already here.
They’re already here. Thank you. Minister Miltenberger, again, for the record, if you could introduce your witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Mike Aumond, deputy minister of Finance; Mr. Russ Neudorf, deputy minister Department of Transportation; and Mr. Sandy Kalgutkar, deputy secretary to the Financial Management Board. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. General comments. Thank you, committee. We’re hearing general detail. Committee, I’m going to ask you to turn to page 5 of your supplementary, 2013-2014, Supplementary Appropriation, No. 1, (Infrastructure Expenditures). Transportation, capital investment expenditures, highways, not previously authorized, $60 million, total department, not previously authorized, $60 million. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Am I to understand that $40,000 of this will be federal dollars provided at some point during the fiscal year? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the number is $40 million over the life of the project.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Would Mr. Neudorf care to clarify? Minister Miltenberger.
So out of the $60 million, $40 million will be coming from the federal government. Okay, got it right. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you. I believe my colleagues corrected me there. It was $40 million. So that will be happening this fiscal year, we will get a transfer of $40 million from the federal government for this cost. Is that correct? Thank you.
Thank you. What the process will be is the political commitment has been made for the $200 million. Mr. Neudorf and his officials will be working with his counterparts in the federal government to work out the details and the funding agreement that will allow that money to flow, and we anticipate in the next two months that would be concluded and the money would start to flow into the project. Thank you.
Thanks for that information. So we will, for sure, have that money for consideration during our fall capital budget, that $40 million for other expenditures. Just looking for confirmation again. Thank you.
Committee, again, page 5, 2013-2014, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did promise I had a few questions on this particular section and I would save my questions to the $60 million page. One of the issues I raised last week, and I think you even highlighted it in a comment earlier, was about publicizing a risk matrix on the Inuvik-Tuk highway, and I appreciate the fact that it’s now shown up on our desk here, but one of the issues I was trying to get at and get a response from the Minister was that this would be in hand and publicized before we’d be making a decision. This information, in a large sense, has shown up in the middle of the discussion and has stopped us, quite frankly it’s stopped us from getting any sort of insight, and certainly expertise outside this building, independent views of the people in the construction industry, because this was always stamped with the big word confidential on it. So I’m curious, from the Minister’s point of view, and certainly from the department’s point of view, of how this is now benefitted me in making a decision on this project? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The information, albeit confidential, provided back in December. It was requested today when we met with committee, that the request was for a plain language summary, which we worked hard to get on the table into committee and which we will table tomorrow. There has been, well, it’s not going to benefit the general public because the discussion will help edify them, but it won’t be part of the prior discussion to today’s vote on this supp. It does provide and has provided the Members with all the information we had available on an ongoing basis as it developed, and as it became available it was shared. Thank you.
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 would have liked to have seen inside, but we get this after the fact. So this document has slithered onto my table while we do this and, quite frankly, I’m disappointed by how late it is. I asked for this last week before we’d make this. So we get this after the fact. This is like rear-view consultation. How many times do we hear about, well, you didn’t consult with us? Now we get a chance that we get the consultation document after the fact, and it’s quite offensive, to be honest.
If you compare the two documents, which we haven’t been given a chance to compare, you’ll notice the new document on the risk matrix has 42 items as a problem, but the document we were even handed at lunchtime, if I may go so far as saying, has 41 items. So I haven’t been able to compare the two documents to find out what’s been added or what’s been changed or what’s missing.
The department knew that this question was coming a week ago. What stopped them from providing this particular information in advance so we could table this in a proper way? They knew this decision was coming on the highway and the fact is the public should not make a mistake. This is not against the highway. This is against the process and against the fact that this is an issue with the process. Thank you.
Thank you. We should be clear that this risk matrix is an evolving living document that, as we conclude all the work and do all the geotechnical, it will be amended. There was work being done on the plain language summary. The government, the department was not deaf to the entreaties of the Member, so we now have it before us in addition to the document that was given in December.
The way we do business for the most part in this Assembly, that I recollect, with committee is we share during the budget process and planning process all sorts of information because we’re a consensus government. We do a full disclosure. It’s not the practice to necessarily do everything through the public fishbowl type of process where every document that we talk about in committee and with committee by the department, in this department or any others, is automatically put on the table and put on some type of public website as we try to sort through things because it would be very difficult to follow.
When we’re ready and our thinking is clear on things, then we’re in a position to lay that information before the public. In the meantime, we do need the opportunity to work with committee to work through a lot of these issues.
The Minister says how we don’t do this. The fact is we don’t approve $300 million projects. Quite frankly, once we’ve approved the $60 million portion, I consider the road on its way. You would think that the concerns of Members would have been treated with more respect on this process. The fact that it’s almost as if the information’s been denied Members for their ability to go out and do their work and due diligence on this. The fact is, middle of December to beginning of March, if nothing’s changed on the original risk matrix, it’s odd. Maybe the Minister can help explain why it changed in the last two hours of today as opposed to just over two months nothing’s changed.
The main change of course is from the technical document that we were looking at. It was one that has been converted into and translated into plain language and which would affect the way it’s structured and how it’s worded.
Is the Minister saying that now that we’ve printed this in a plain language document that that’s become a risk?
I believe in the risk matrix there is political risk that has been identified. Putting this into plain language, I don’t know if it’s necessarily a political risk. The Members asked for a plain language summary. We’ve provided it to them, and we’ve indicated, as well the Minister committed that we would table this in the House tomorrow.
This is like complaining about the ship that’s already long since sailed. It provides very little value other than those four most satisfying words in the English language, which are “I told you so.” The fact is this provides little value in the lead up and preparing for this particular initiative, because how do we prepare for it in a manner that makes sense to talk about these things? And that’s a failing of the process. That’s a failing of the Minister. That’s a failing of the system. How does the Minister defend that this simple piece of information that was asked for over a week ago or about a week ago couldn’t have been produced and been ready for a timely placement before the House before this forced vote on this particular initiative? The issue all along was asking for public information so we could digest this, discuss this, and bring this topic. I’m sure the public will realize that we’re not talking about the $300 million project anymore. We’re talking about the process.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. For that we’ll go to Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been before committee. We were before committee providing information back in December. February 20th we were back in front of committee. Any assertion that we haven’t been sharing information is a false one. The information has been shared with Members of this House. Members of this House are representatives of the people of the Northwest Territories. We have shared the information. We’ve committed today to get a plain language document that we can share publicly. We’re going to do that.
We’ve shared that with Members today, in the lead up to today, when we finally did receive confirmation from the federal government on the additional $50 million. The project was, in essence, hanging in the balance. We didn’t have the commitment from the federal government. There are reasons why we don’t expose ourselves by putting all the information out in the public realm. We don’t get public expectations up. We needed to know exactly what we were getting ourselves into.
With the commitment today of the additional $50 million, we are ready to move forward. We have committed to put that information into that document that Members have. The public will have it, and we’ll get it on our website. I don’t want anybody that’s watching the proceedings tonight to think for one second that it’s my intention as Minister, or this government’s intention to keep information from the public. That’s not our intention at all.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Hawkins, I’ll just allow a quick rebuttal on that one.
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 learn about this in a manner to ask good questions.
To say we’ve met with committee, sure, you’ve met with committee, but the fact is it’s always been confidential. We have never been in a position to take advice or get advice from others outside this building who are already in this project. Who am I supposed to ask? Somebody from the Department of Transportation? They’re the ones sending us this perspective.
The assertion from the Minister of we’re sharing everything is, again, rear-view consultation. This is ridiculous because the fact is I had asked for this a week ago. This was not a new request about making sure this information is available, about making sure information is available in a timely way. If anything, this is the same question he would be asking if he was sitting on this side of the House.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Final comment on that, we’ll go to Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe Mr. Ramsay would like to respond.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. We’ll give the courtesy to a final comment on that to Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a comment on that. I asked questions for eight years, so I do appreciate the Members asking questions. I guess I always try to look at the positive when looking at decisions that we have to make. A lot of Members have compared the highway project to the Deh Cho Bridge. Being a Member of this House for as long as I have been a Member, the debate on whether or not the government got into the Deh Cho Bridge never got to the floor of the House.
We are having this discussion today. We have all the information squarely on the table. We are able to debate the merits of a large-scale infrastructure program here in the Territories. I think it’s a great day when we have that opportunity. We have provided the Members with the information back in December, again in February, and the document we provided today. We have provided the information. We are going to look to Members to support the efforts to build this highway in the Beaufort-Delta.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Hawkins, your time is up. Let me know if you need to get back on. Moving on with questions on page 5, I have Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make a comment. I am a Member for Sahtu that certainly – when we go up there we don’t have the all-weather road – understands the people in the Beaufort-Delta and Mackenzie Delta for pushing for this road here and their efforts. I know that my people would like to see an all-weather road. We also know the resources are there right now. We also know that the people up in Tuk and Inuvik have worked long and hard and they’ve done their work. They’ve told me in the Sahtu they have done the lobbying, they’ve done the work, they’ve convinced a lot of people. They even worked with the government of the day to get their work in the books, and so far as we have the Prime Minister of Canada making a commitment, unheard of, to a project in the Northwest Territories.
Us in the Sahtu, we understand about infrastructure and building. We have been at it for a long time ourselves since the ‘70s, even since the ‘50s when Diefenbaker had his dream about the Road to Resources. This is 140 kilometres of road. When you come outside here, and not to pick on Yellowknife, but if you come outside here you drive down here to the Ingraham Trail. That’s 74 kilometres of road. Most of it’s paved. Surely we could do 140 kilometres up at the Beaufort Sea.
How many millions of dollars have we spent? I call it the best fish road in the Northwest Territories because it’s paved right to the end. My wife and I drove on it and said, gee whiz, Tulita to Norman Wells is 84 kilometres. Surely we can build a road like that. That’s 74 kilometres on my GMC vehicle. We have to build. That’s about it. We have to build this country. We have to build what they’re asking for.
You say they’re 85 percent designed. What kind of dollars are we looking at for the 15 percent to get 100 percent completed design? I’m going to rely on the Minister, the Minister of Finance and his department. Other than going into I have a dream or let’s build this Northwest Territories, you know, it is unprecedented to have the Prime Minister come up with $200 million for infrastructure. I wish he could do that in the Sahtu for us, but we keep our hopes alive.
This looks like a lot of money but the benefits outweigh it. We have to do it for them. We have to of course go through some of the hard questions, but we feel confident. We have to do it. If we want to build a $2 billion highway and we’re fighting over $299 million, look at the work that we did at over $200 million for the Deh Cho Bridge, what is the federal government going to say to us? You guys want to build a $1.8 billion highway? We’re with the big boys now. We need to do that. That’s his only chance.
I’ve been here eight years, nine years. This is the first time I’m seeing it. I never thought I would see a devolution deal. I never thought that would be possible. We may disagree, but we have to go arm in arm on this one and show Canada and show the rest of the world that there are possibilities for us. I’m not going to ask too many questions. I want to know, I guess, in regard to the 85 percent of the design, is that 15 percent the uncertainty? I don’t know. Mr. Minister, you might know.
Finance is putting this deal together. We still have to deal with the Inuvialuit and the other things that we have to put this deal together. We need to start building. We have to put the heavy machinery to work and the people to work and help fulfill the Prime Minister’s vision or goal, sea to sea to sea. Pretty soon they’re going to see it in the Sahtu. That’s what I’m looking forward to.
For me, we still need to look at some of these hard questions. I understand that. But I think that we have to support the people up there. We’ve got to do that. That’s all I’m going to say. These are mostly comments, but if he wants to answer one question on 85 percent design, what’s the 15 percent? Certainly, if they can build a road from here to the end of Prelude Lake and pave it, maybe they will do that one up there too, because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, is what I say.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. We’ll go to Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The $65 million that is currently before this Assembly – the $5 million that was just approved and the $60 million now before the House – will prove up the gravel, we’ll do the geotechnical work, conclude that, and finalize a design before we go to tender and actually get the work done this fall.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Moving on with questions on page 5 here, I have Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minister just said going to tender. Is this project going to be put out for public tender?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.
