Debates of August 22, 2007 (day 15)

Thank you, Mr. Handley. I am not aware that that document has been tabled in the House and the rules do state that you are not to refer to documents that have not been tabled in the House. Therefore, I will rule that the Member has a point of order and I will advise the Member not to be quoting from a document that is not before the House. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I respect the point of order. A further part of this whole discussion, Mr. Speaker, was that there has been a longstanding expectation and many tantalizing offers or suggestions or hints that Canada would be coming into this, recognizing what a significant piece of infrastructure this is for this region and for Canada. Yet we still do not have a tangible certainty from Canada that it’s going to say we do have a responsibility to come into something like this. We do have evidence that this is a good thing for Canada because it is a significant part of the transportation link for the diamond mines now, Mr. Speaker, that are pouring a big chunk of the $750,000 a day that Canada is getting in taxes and royalties from the Northwest Territories. Why is it so difficult for Canada to appreciate that there is ample evidence that this a good deal? This is a win/win for everybody. If you do the math, you will find out that in just over two months, that revenue and royalty stream would actually pay the $50 million that is generally expected and anticipated that Canada just might come in for.

So in the absence of that kind of guarantee or that kind of certainty from Canada, why are we pushing ahead with this now? The Premier and the Minister of Transportation have told us in meetings with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transportation, oh, yes, there are national programs that you might quality for, that you are on top of the radar screen for, but we still don’t have it. We won’t know until at least later on this year, this fall, after the next Assembly is in place, Mr. Speaker. What is the rush to put this on?

The previous Assembly and this Assembly have pushed this along. We have taken prudent steps to negotiate and find out what the deals are. Hopefully we haven’t made too much of a mistake, because one company is already challenging some of the negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I really think the prudent thing for this Assembly to do is to sign off on the work that we have done for now, recognize that not enough is in place yet in terms of the knowledge and the information, confidence that the public and the companies who are going to be paying for this for the next 35 years are not there and also the potential. I would like to be optimistic and positive. The potential for Canada to come into this project and in the relatively near future is still there.

We are undertaking a major risk on the part of the economy, the people and the economy of the NWT for quite awhile by coming into this project at this time with the uncertainties that are still out there. I still do want to see this infrastructure done, but I want to see it done in a way that we all know about and we all have confidence about. That’s why we have asked, in our motion, for a deferral of this over to the next Legislative Assembly, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the motion. The honourable Member for Monfwi, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker…(English not provided)

Mr. Speaker, just to summarize what I’ve said in the Tlicho language, this bridge that we are talking about here is also in our backyard, the neighbouring Deh Cho area in Fort Providence. We call it…(English not provided)…in our language.

The bridge has already been announced that it’s going to go ahead. We are here debating the accountability, the transparency. It’s true that we should have gotten more information, whether it be business and economic impact models that have been requested by colleagues of mine around the table here. We met with the Premier on the briefings. Those types of requests have been laid on the table, but here we are still asking for that information. When we look at the true consensus government, we have government in Cabinet and we also have government here. We are supposed to work side by side and not to surprise us to say the bridge is going ahead.

Loan guarantees; words are said as Members here and we really didn’t have a say in the process. That’s why this motion was brought forward, to say be transparent. Where is the information you are supposed to be sharing with us? Also be accountable. We are accountable to over 40,000 in the North. We are individuals sitting here around the table. We are also responsible for our own region. If this bridge, the way it sounds it’s going ahead anyway, how can we explain to our people, how can I explain to the Tlicho region, 3,000 people, that it’s going ahead? They may be happy because it’s in our backyard but, at the same time, there are others in the region that we have to take care of too.

Mr. Speaker, then again, reflecting back on the information that’s been requested, that’s all we are asking for. The information was requested awhile back and just recently, as well. Personally, I am not against the bridge because it’s going to happen anyways.

---Laughter

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear -- and this is just a recommendation but we have to put it on the record -- this is the Government of the Northwest Territories that are pushing things through. They need to have our input. This is a major project. The ceremony is happening on Friday. I am glad to see my chiefs will be coming back from Smith to attend that. Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend, but just to make a note that being transparent is all we are asking for from this government. The next government needs to consider that as well; whoever that may be in the next government. It’s a consensus government, so let’s work together government to government to government. Mahsi.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. To the motion. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Most of what I want to say has already been covered by other Members, so I am going to be very brief. To the motion, Mr. Speaker, how we feel as Regular Members on this side of the House is happy about the bridge but demoralized by the process. That’s how I feel. I mean who couldn’t be happy for Fort Providence and be happy for the bridge? I don’t know whether we need the bridge, but you know what? Representing Hay River, I don’t really care because Yellowknife is paying for it anyway, ultimately.

---Laughter

Well, that $2 million a year, that is only going to offset inflation and the costs going up. That is not really a bad investment of this government. That can be rationalized. But what I can’t rationalize is the attitude on the other side of the House, sitting there, basically thumbing their noses at us over here saying we are doing it, come to the celebration. So, sure, I am going to Fort Providence on Friday. I am going to stand there, I am going to applaud Fort Providence and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and we are going to celebrate the bridge, but I’ll tell you, we are not feeling all that good about it just by virtue of this process which was not transparent, which did not show respect to the Members of this House and that government, for that, should be ashamed of themselves. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. Honourable Premier, Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to speak briefly to the motion. Let’s take a little look back at history. You know, we go back, we’re either the eighth or the ninth Legislative Assembly to debate whether there should be a bridge or not. It goes back in to the ‘70s. In the 1970s, $6 million was too much to build the bridge. When it was $50 million, $75 million, it was always too much and today it’s too much in people’s minds, but we can’t keep debating these things forever. We have to move ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide a little bit of background just on this project and point out that this was proposed in 2002 as a P3 project, a new, novel idea of how we could build a bridge. The model was based on a toll of $6 a tonne in 2002. That has remained the same and that is indexed for inflation. That’s always been the agreement based on the consumer price index. Nichols Applied Management did an economic analysis in 2002 and updated it in 2003. A copy of that was provided to Members in the 14th Assembly and again in the 15th Assembly it was provided to everyone. The economic analysis focused on the impact of the bridge on the cost of living and compared the cost of the toll against the estimated savings of the bridge versus the current operation of a ferry and an ice crossing. The overall cost of the bridge was never looked at as a factor in determining the impact on the cost of living. It’s always been based on the toll and we have remained consistent with that.

Let me say that the government, I did, I was there, and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation did a briefing to Members on July the 12th. We went through the economic models. Andrew Gamble led us through that. We looked at the numbers from every which way, we reviewed the financial impact, the costs estimate, you talked about the changes in interest rates, the potential of other projects like the hydro development and the possible Bathurst Inlet port. We talked about all that on July 12th.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that has remained constant throughout this whole debate, right up to the last briefing with Members on July the 12th, was the fact that this is based on a toll per tonne at $6 and adjusted for inflation. Mr. Speaker, the economic analysis, if you think back, go look back at your copy of the report that was done and given to you, you will find that that report shows that all vehicles, private and commercial, would be dollars ahead with the bridge rather than with a ferry or an ice crossing. In fact, it shows that the savings would be greatest for those who use the ferry and somewhat less for those that did the ice crossing. That was all shown.

Mr. Speaker, the communities that benefit most are the communities north of the Mackenzie River. Not just Yellowknife, but also Behchoko, Fort Providence and I would say, and I don’t recall, but the report, I believe also looked at the communities that have their supplies, their goods, their people flown in from the Yellowknife Airport to somewhere on this side. The facts are, for the consumers, the savings from this project outweigh the costs. That was true in 2002; it’s true again. Look at the reports that you have, think back on the July 12th briefing that you had with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and ourselves.

Companies have approached us because we’re running into a crisis, and I mentioned it once before, that last year we had to shut the ferry down because of low water, temperatures are changing. Companies are coming to us now saying, can we run the ferry for 24 hours a day to deal with some of the backlog of traffic that they have today and they anticipate peaking in October? Those are all reasons why we need to move ahead with this. Even if we set aside the tolls, the savings to anybody who lives on this side of the river is great.

Mr. Speaker, some Members have asked about the urgency; I’ve heard Members here, I’ve listened carefully, they’re talking about the urgency of moving on with this. It’s true that the price of the bridge has increased substantially. If we had been able to move ahead quickly with it in 2002-2003, we were looking at about a $75 million bridge where today we’re looking at a total cost of somewhere around $150 million; the contract being a good piece of that, but not all of it. Steel prices are going up; other goods and services in Western Canada are going up. In fact, globally we’re seeing the same thing happen. There’s no easy or quick turnaround. That’s predicted with China, with India, with other places that are big on demand.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the investment by the GNWT of another $2 million a year to make this project move ahead now is a good investment. We’ve got additional revenues from the federal government and this is going to be an investment that in two, three, five, 10 years after the bridge was built we can say that this is the best decision we’ve ever made. We would have said that in the 1970s if the people had built the bridge at that time. We would have said it in 1980s, 1990s, we could have said it in 2002 if we had built the bridge then at the price of it those days. We’ll say the same thing five years from now.

It should also be noted that we are receiving significant financial federal funding increase over the next while. We’ll soon be signing a framework agreement with the federal government on Building Canada, the infrastructure money. There is additional revenue that we are receiving. It may not be tied directly to the bridge, but it’s there.

Mr. Speaker, I’d also like to point out that we have come to an arrangement, come to a deal. We haven’t signed a contract yet, there’s still some paperwork to be done with Atcon Group out of New Brunswick who have stepped forward and offered to build the bridge for a guaranteed maximum price. This is not a management or a cost plus project at all, but it is for a guaranteed price, something which is a big step and I think a big win for us.

Mr. Speaker, in my mind, there’s no reason to defer the bridge. Members may feel they need more information. I’d refer you back to the information given to you, I’d refer you back to the notes, I’ll give you another copy if you want of the information that’s been provided to you. There will always be questions, I’m sure, in people’s minds about it, but I don’t think you’d ever build a project like this without having some uneasiness about whether or not it is going to come in at the prices that we’re voting, and with that guaranteed maximum price I think we’ve got as much assurance as we can.

A further delay is only going to add uncertainty and add more cost. It could easily kill this project and I think destroy the NWT’s credibility. I think we have to stop acting like we’re a little branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and the federal government and act like a government, make these decisions. We have to build infrastructure, we know we have to do it and we can’t be always going hand out to the federal government. Let’s make our own decisions here in this Legislative Assembly and be responsible.

The bridge across the Mackenzie would not only change the physical landscape, but I think symbolizes a lot of change in the political and the economic landscape in the Northwest Territories. This project, along with our work to promote other large transportation infrastructure projects like the Mackenzie Valley highway and the road to Tuk are critical in building a strong and prosperous territory. I’d take the same approach to those projects as I did with the Deh Cho Bridge and I hope the next government does the same thing, just keeps promoting that we need to build infrastructure and we have to get on with it.

So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Members’ comments. I’ve listened carefully. I understand what you’re saying. The Cabinet will not be voting on this motion. It’s a recommendation to us and I appreciate the comments and the positions taken by all of the Members. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. I’ll allow the mover of the motion to pose a debate on the motion. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Premier for his comments. I also thank the Members who spoke in favour of the motion that we have before us today. I just wanted to close with saying a few more things.

I know the Premier spoke of making decisions as a territory and being accountable. That’s all fine and good, Mr. Speaker, but at no moment in time were Members of this House, Regular Members, part of the decision-making process to spend the additional $2 million, and that, to me, is the fundamental problem that I have with the bridge project. That was a unilateral decision by Cabinet to go ahead and rely on that five-year-old piece of legislation to negotiate a deal. Like I said the other day, nowhere in the Deh Cho Bridge Act does it say build a bridge, Government, at any price. I think if the price has doubled, there should be an obligation on the government to come back and ask Members if they feel it’s necessary to spend that additional money that’s going to impact the governments for the next 35 years on the bridge project. We’ve never had that discussion. We’ve never had a vote on that. The government never brought that issue back here. We’ve never had a debate on whether or not we should spend $2 million more.

Mr. Speaker, that speaks again to the accountability and the transparency. How am I going to explain to my constituents, many of whom want to see a bridge built, I want to see a bridge built across the Mackenzie River, but not at any price and I want to know how it is that the government can make a decision without including us in the decision. How am I going to explain to my constituents how it is the government got into a deal with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation to build a bridge for $150 million, charge tolls of $6.75 a tonne, which will be more in 2010, without, and I repeat, without going back to the stakeholders in the North Slave region as they did in 2002? The parameters have changed. Make no mistake about that. Things are much different five years later. The consultation wasn’t done. I know Mr. Braden spoke of a press conference and I believe it was Mr. Albert Lafferty from Fort Providence spoke of the more people that understand this project, the more they will support it. I think a quote like that goes a long way, Mr. Speaker. The more people understand what is going on, the more they will support it. I firmly do believe that.

We haven’t heard whether in fact the elders in Fort Providence are happy what the environmental impact on the river might be with a bridge across it, but we haven’t seen that level of detail. We haven’t been able to ask those questions. Again, Mr. Speaker, if I could, where is the economic modelling, where is the economic modelling on the Deh Cho Bridge project? The Premier says it’s the same as 2002, you just plug in new numbers. The tolls are going up, it’s $150 million and he expects us to believe it. He expects us to believe it. Show us the proof. That’s all we want, that’s all I want. I want to be able to tell my constituents the Premier is quick to say the cost of living will not go up in the North Slave region. I beg to differ with the Premier on that assertion that the cost of living will not increase here in the North Slave region with this bridge being built. They have yet to prove that, Mr. Speaker.

So I think the government should come clean on an economic benefit analysis on this bridge before it’s too late, and too late is 48 hours from now, Mr. Speaker. Somebody should be paying attention. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Laughter

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Motion is on the floor. Motion is in order. All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

---Applause