Mr. Chairman, the Member is correct. There is no formal process in this Legislative Assembly to remove those funds from this particular budget once it is passed by this House. I guess what we're doing is undertaking that in the event the Standing Committee on Finance would not be happy with the study, then the FMB would remove that particular item from the budget. That's a condition we're prepared to state in this House and live by, Mr. Chairman, depending on the study and how the Standing Committee on Finance views that.

Mr. Chairman, if we are looking at removing $50,000 and we're looking at leaving the $500,000, the $850,000 and the $100,000 in the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98, then I don't have any objection. I don't see that that would put us in a problem with the federal government because it will still be showing on our books as future year expenditures. Again, if the Standing Committee on Finance did not agree with the study and the $50,000 was not reinstated, then obviously we would have to look at the future years at that particular time. If we're prepared to leave the future years on there and just defer or delete the $50,000 to come back by way of supp, then that's acceptable, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, again I'm trying to picture in my mind how you determine costs for any infrastructure without pre-engineering studies being done. All the highways that are being reconstructed, you have to do pre-engineering work prior to a cost-estimate being established. I'm just saying that by deleting that money it restricts or handicaps the resupply study that is going to be done. If you're going to be doing a study and a cost-analysis in that study, then you have to have some pre-engineering work done, soil testing, drilling, whatever it takes. But if you have that missing, then there is a part of the study that's missing. I don't know what the rationale is behind deleting it, but that's the way I always picture things. I thought that was the way the government operated. They do things by study, but also by pre-engineering studies to determine the cost-factors as well as the conditions and everything else that's required.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gargan is correct, but the way the time frames work out none of this money could be spent before 12:01 am, April 1, 1994, and because the Department of Transportation is going to report to the Standing Committee on Finance and the House in the winter session on the study, there would still be time to reinstate that $50,000 before the time it's required. That would give ample time to allow those pre-engineering studies to go ahead if there was concurrence from the House and the Standing Committee on Finance with regard to the study that Mr. Todd has mentioned before. The time frames do work out, Mr. Chairman.

Question.

Mr. Chairman, I move we report progress.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring in the deputy minister.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. On my immediate right is Mr. Andrew Gamble, Deputy Minister of Transportation.

Marine Services

Agreed.

---Agreed

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the Minister about the objectives of the Department of Transportation regarding the additional funding that the Minister's department is pursuing from federal sources for implementation of plans arising from the revised transportation strategy.

I would like to ask the Minister what is the revised transportation strategy versus the old transportation strategy?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you recall, I said in the House that while the old transportation strategy -- if you want to call it that -- was a laudable document, I felt at the time that it was perhaps unrealistic when you consider the fiscal condition of the country and the fiscal condition of the GNWT.

I will be tabling the report that was done by Gordon Wray, the former Minister of Transportation, as soon as it is translated. What we will try to show in this report are eight or nine objectives that we can try to accomplish over the next two year period. The priority of the objectives is highways. We talk about the Dempster and the Mackenzie. We talk about the need for additional fiscal resources to try to improve the highway system whether it is in the Fort Smith, Fort Simpson or Hay River areas. One of the established priorities is an acceleration in wharves and marine facilities, particularly in some of the communities where we don't have them.

We want to take a hard look at the Arctic coast area, particularly in Coppermine, where mineral development is taking place in Izok Lake. I do realize that is a huge project and I suspect it would require enormous public funds, but that is another priority we're looking at. We're looking at trying to negotiate some additional funding from the federal government to upgrade the airports. As you know, we are in the throes of initiating discussions about the transfer of Arctic airports.

We need to improve marine resupply and we are also looking at means to improve the way we spend the dollars in the north, to ensure that more dollars are put in the hands of northerners. If I were to summarize it, I would say we are trying to negotiate with the current federal government one or two important initiatives which would allow us to continue what took place in the past with respect to the Mackenzie Highway. That is one.

Two, we have to look at finding some additional resources to try to improve the highways over the next five years, or whatever. I'm told if we could negotiate somewhere between $8 million on an annual basis -- and I stand to be corrected -- then we could make a tremendous impact on many of the highways we have here in the west and be able to bring them up to a better standard over a very short period of time.

I think we all recognize the importance of the mineral developments that have taken place in the Lac de Gras area and, of course, in the Kitikmeot with Izok Lake. So, that's also a priority. I think that, in a nutshell, is where we're at. I will be tabling this as soon as we get it translated. Thank you.

I would like to expand a bit on Mr. Todd's response to Mrs. Marie-Jewell. I understand you're looking at some infrastructure in areas where there is potential mining development for diamonds or whatever. I was wondering whether you have also looked at it from the point of view that these areas are claimant areas? How are you dealing with that as a government, knowing that you have to get permission from those claimant groups to actually develop construction in those areas?

Let me make it clear from the outset, I'm not suggesting that we go in and spend a lot of money on public infrastructure without there being significant benefits to northerners in any development. I want to say that from the outset. And, I recognize the importance of the claimant groups and the complications that relate particularly to mineral development. We have in place a working committee made up of Mr. Ted Blondin, who is representing the Dogrib people, I believe, Joe Allen, who represents the Kitikmeot people, the Chamber of Mines, the Chamber of Commerce, the department of EM&PR and myself.

This group is kind of like a small working group trying to determine how we would approach the federal government to assist us in a joint initiative to find the dollars to put the infrastructure in place, should it be requested by the industry and should it be required in terms of a mining development such as Izok Lake.

I'm trying to keep as many of the stakeholders involved as possible on an ongoing basis in developing a strategy to try to find these dollars, if they're required and requested. That is what we're working on right now. We have a working committee, it is fairly tight so we can get things done. It does represent the aboriginal claimant groups, particularly in the Lac de Gras and the Izok Lake areas. It also represents industry and the NWT Chamber of Commerce as well. We have the federal government on that committee too, the local DIAND assistant deputy minister.

We're working diligently with those groups to develop a strategy as to how we would move forward in approaching the federal government, should and if the requests come for some public infrastructure support for these facilities.