Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are only a few remarks with respect to Transportation. The Minister of Transportation indicated that the transportation planning activity for 1992-93, which is approximately $26,000,000, was entirely comprised of enhancements. One of the problems we had with this was the difficulty in justification for the expenditures. In other words, how do you quantify some of the reconstruction of highways in Yellowknife, the Jean Marie access road, and things of that nature? Our concern was not that transportation is not a critical component to the northern economy but that at this difficult time these enhancements, adding to existing infrastructure, given some of the financial difficulties we have -- maybe that money should be put somewhere else. We believe, as we said, with the capital budget, that Transportation is potentially, as is MACA and other departments, a significant economic instrument, but we had some difficulties in seeing where the department linked their expenditures and their financial instruments together. While, as the Minister said, the department boasts a high degree of northern content in its projects, we did observe some major contracts going to southern suppliers. For example, there was a $2.3 million contract that went to Carmacks Construction for asphaltic surfacing of Highway No. 1. Although the department did maintain that the company used northern labour, we still believe there must have been a significant leakage of dollars, whether it was in tax dollars, et cetera, to the South.
With respect to Transportation's budget, we are going to recommend in general resolutions that cabinet re-examine priorities from a cost-benefit analysis in light of other fundamental needs. Do you pave a highway, or put water and sewer into a place? Those are the kinds of issues that we talked about. We think the department should use its capital budget to ensure that there is maximum benefits to Northerners -- employment and training we have all talked about -- but I think the department has a responsibility, not just to develop a transportation infrastructure, but to ensure that transportation infrastructure and policies clearly meet the needs of the training and employment components of Northerners.
The other concern was that the Transportation infrastructure be approved, where it can be substantiated that it is conducive to the development of industry. What we mean by that is, the Pangnirtung situation where you have got a fisheries industry, yet we understand the runway does not have the capacity to haul out a 748 loaded with fish. Do you know what I am saying? There have to be some linkages, I guess, between some of the developments that are taking place in the country, whether it is fisheries or logging or whatever, with the Department of Transportation. I guess that is what we are trying to say here. If, for example, the Pangnirtung fishery is a significant economic instrument that provides long-term jobs to Northerners, then when the Department of Transportation looks at its capital budget it should keep that in mind if there is a requirement, for example, for expanding the runway, whether or not it can be done, et cetera. Right now, what is happening is, in that particular example, they are not able to haul full loads of fish out.
The last point we would like to make is, the department re-evaluated standards to ensure they are reasonable in light of what this government can afford. This is consistent with what we said to all departments. If all you can afford is a Ford, let us make sure you buy a Ford and not a Cadillac. I do not think our position is any different here than it has been with MACA or any other departments.
Enhancements should be justified on their return. There has to be some way to quantify why we are hard-topping a highway, why we are building a road, et cetera. Thank you.