Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding from the department that these log cabins were part of the original construction. However, I am one of these kinds of people who say, "What is good for Hay River should be good for Nahanni and Fort Liard." We will look at it and see if, in fact, it is feasible and what costs relate to it. We want to make sure in large stretches of the road, particularly during the winter in this part of the country, that there are some kind of survival cabins. Again, Mr. Chairman, we would have to look at it to see what kind of costs would be attached to it. I would be prepared to get back to the honourable Member once we have done an analysis. I would like to say that I have been told, and it may be because I have not been in any accidents, that the cabins which are currently in place between Fort Simpson and Hay River are not used that much. In fact, I am not sure they are being used at all. However, I believe the concern which has been raised is with regard to the accident which took place last year. It is a legitimate concern so we will look into it and get back to the honourable Member before the end of the summer.

Thank you. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you. Another concern I have is regarding highway patrol in my area. I have never received any tickets from them so that is not the problem. I am told that the highway patrol position out of Fort Liard has moved, they have taken the PY out of there and moved it to the Hay River area. There is a weigh scale there and I understand it will not be used any longer. I was wondering if the Minister could explain to me what is going on here. Thank you.

Mr. Minister.

Highway patrol, it reminds me of when I was a kid and we used to have a program called "Highway Patrol." They used to say 10-4, I think it was Dan Matthews. I understand what the honourable Member is saying. I am not that familiar with this particular situation but the department tells me there is insignificant traffic to warrant that kind of expenditure. While there is no permanent highway patrol in that area, it is covered by these mobile patrols which take place. I will be very candid, I am not familiar with this situation. I will be prepared to look into it and get back to the Member. Right now it is a situation of insufficient traffic, it does not warrant the kind of expenditure we have, we are covering it off by mobile patrols, but I will get more details to the Member just to confirm it. Thank you.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Lewis.

I do not have much to say, Mr. Chairman, but I am taking a lesson from those people who spend a great deal of time listening. I have a few comments to make. When you build a transportation system you have to be fairly sure what your objective is, what it is you are trying to do. I hear all kinds of talk about what we should do, and usually if you are going to spend millions and millions of dollars, you had better have a proper handle on what kind of investment you are making and for what purpose.

We know, for example, the railway which went all the way up to Churchill was built because they were going to ship all kinds of wheat from the prairies to Europe. They were able to justify the cost of the railway by looking at the difference in shipping it by rail to the coast before the St. Lawrence seaway was built, which was very expensive. They figured, economically, that made sense. We have a railway built in the west because there was a huge deposit in Pine Point. They looked at the economics of that, the life of the deposit and figured out to the dollar what the economics of it would be.

So, I hear all kinds of proposals about developing infrastructure as if it is just a good idea. We have to have it because it is good to have infrastructure. However, you have to have a good handle on what that is going to do, what is the benefit of it. You cannot just have a dream or a vision unless you have some facts and figures to deal with. I would be very concerned if we continue to look at projects without really having a proper handle on what we are getting into and something which we can justify to the public on the basis of real knowledge of what we know.

I have a few questions. In the early 1970s there was great talk about the Mackenzie Valley. We could have a road all the way up the Mackenzie. I remember our MP from Fort McPherson was very interested in a railroad. I think it was an NDP position, rather than his own personal position.

I would like to ask the Minister, the railroad which we have right now, there is only a small portion of it in the territories, what use is made of that small bit of steel that comes through Alberta as far as Hay River? What use is made of that railroad right now?

Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I did not even know we had one. My understanding is, since the closing down of the Pine Point operation, the traffic on the Hay River railway, Mr. Gamble tells me, is marginal.

Mr. Lewis.

That is an answer that does not give much information. I would like to have some ideas as to... We have it there, I know there are trains which come up there with something on them, but I cannot figure out what they bring into Hay River. They must take something into Hay River that makes it worthwhile keeping that line open.

Mr. Minister.

I understand what Mr. Lewis is saying. If you look at, for example, the Manitoba railway up to Churchill, there is no alternative, therefore it brings in the fuel, freight, food and everything into the Churchill area and then it is transported by air or NTCL in the summer months. I would suspect, and as I said I do not know very much about this railway out of Hay River, you have competing interests in terms of the highway, you have a reduction in terms of the requirement for that type of operation because of the Pine Point mine closing and it just simply cannot compete. I do not know whether that answers Mr. Lewis's question, but to the best of my knowledge that would be why it is not being utilized as well as it has been in the past. Of course you have major jet service into most of the communities in that particular area. I could let Mr. Gamble give you more information if you require it.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Lewis.

I know that the federal government has been interested for a long time in getting this road up the Mackenzie Valley. It was a big issue during the 1970s and there was tremendous debate over the need to get a corridor because they were talking about a pipeline and all kinds of things related to oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea. Again, I never got a good sense of the economics of it. What exactly was going to be achieved by it, how much money would it cost and so on? It is possible to get an update on what the thinking currently is on the value of a Mackenzie Valley road? At one time, if you will recall, there was this dream of having a road all the way to the Arctic coast, but that is there now to some degree because of the Dempster. It does not come through our part of the world, but there is a way to get that far north which takes you through the Yukon and only partially through the territories. What is the current thinking about the value of that Mackenzie Valley corridor?

Thank you. Mr. Minister.,

When you look at major public infrastructure, as I said earlier and I will say again, it requires significant federal involvement. How do you get federal involvement? You get federal involvement when they pay attention to issues such as Dome Petroleum with the pipeline, et cetera.

As Mr. Lewis has said, in the 1970s there was a great deal of interest because the federal government felt that a highway infrastructure would be complimentary to a pipeline and to the oil and gas exploration which was taking place in the Beaufort. I suspect this was the political thinking at the time.

As to the current thinking, I am really not up on what the current federal government thinking is. I have been in this portfolio for three months. I have not had an opportunity to meet with my federal counterpart. I suspect there will be a new one after the next national election. I would suspect we have to convince the federal government that there is a real need for this project and it is going to benefit and meet the aspirations and needs of the Northwest Territories residents.

I am not one of these individuals who is convinced you necessarily need to have an objective at the end of the road. If we had done that, would the QEW have been built, would the roads in the provinces have been done? The federal government cost shares and subsidizes the Newfoundland ferries, et cetera. What we need to do is have a receptive federal government. I am not suggesting the current one is not, but we need to have one that is. We have to get on the national agenda. I have said this on a number of occasions. It is my intention, with my limited expertise, that when we do the update on the NWT strategy which Mr. Lewis and others will be involved in, to move transportation onto the national agenda. To do this, we have to be able to determine what we can realistically accomplish.

As we move into the 1990s with looking at the federal government restraint, I do not know. I have to think optimistically that we have the capacity and the ability to convince the powers that be, whoever they are, that there is a need to take a hard look at what we are doing in this country, whether it is a road to Izok Lake which is specifically designated to a mine, or whether it is to meet the needs and aspirations of the people in the Mackenzie Delta. I am not sure if this answers Mr. Lewis's questions, but this is how I feel about it.

Thank you. Mr. Lewis.

I am at a little bit of a loss to understand how someone could say that a transportation strategy does not have to have an objective. There is no problem in getting a road to nowhere as long as someone else is paying for it. The reality is that we are paying for it as we are all taxpayers. We either pay it here or we pay it somewhere else, but we are all paying for it somehow. To make a statement that it does not matter whether you have an objective or not, as long as we do not get stuck with the bill, it would be a very difficult thing to sell that we want a road because we like roads. We just happen to like the look of a road, whether it is going anywhere does not make any difference but we like them. So, if you have some money, give us the money so that we can build those things we like to have, without any objective. It could be a road from point A to point B, and it will look good from the air. It would be a wonderful thing to be able to see that road when you fly from point A to B. The fact that it has no objective is immaterial, it does not matter. Is the Minister, again, teasing us? Is he, in fact, being light-hearted about this business of whether a road or transportation system should have an objective because he has been light-hearted with us before? He said he was only fibbing, or he was only teasing us. Is he serious about it not being necessary to have an objective for a transportation system or strategy?

Mr. Todd.

Yes, I am being serious about the need for an objective for a transportation strategy. If Mr. Lewis misinterpreted what I was saying, then I apologize. What I am saying is, I will use Izok Lake for an example, it is project- specific. We go to the federal government and we can demonstrate clearly the net benefits to Canada and to the Northwest Territories and why there is a need for public infrastructure.

With regard to the Mackenzie Valley highway, hopefully we would be able to tie in some serious arguments as to why that should also take place. There is some discussions, for example, taking place with Hondo with respect to oil and gas in that area. There could be a whole new exploration activity take place in the Beaufort. There is no reason why we could not demonstrate to the federal government that if it was prepared to put in this kind of public infrastructure money, as it has done in other provinces, we could bring significant net benefits to Canada and to the Northwest Territories.

While I do occasionally jest, I do not see any harm in the odd piece of humour in this House, which sometimes tends to be too serious.

Hear, hear.

Thank you. Are there any general comments? Mr. Koe.

Thank you. With all due respect to my colleague, Mr. Lewis, who has many paved roads and highways in his jurisdiction, I would not mind a road up the Mackenzie Valley so I can get home once in awhile in a direct link rather than going through the Yukon. It is going somewhere, it is going to Inuvik.

---Laughter

There is something at the end of the road. There are also many other communities which are proposed to link up with that highway if it ever goes through.

I would be remiss if I did not speak about the Dempster. There are many concerns from the residents in the Mackenzie Valley who are linked to the Dempster. Over the years there have been some accidents on the road and there is a serious concern by truckers and other people who use it, as to the safety of the road. I know it is in the current strategy and it is on the plans to do some major upgrading and renovations to it. I would push to accelerate those plans because according to statistics I think we have had nearly the second highest amount of visitor traffic or registered traffic on the road, somewhere in the neighbourhood of eight to ten thousand vehicles that registered in one of the visitors' centres along the highway. A great deal of new traffic travels up there but with it there is also a great deal of complaints, the dust, the width of the highway and the conditions of the highway. I hope that in the new strategy, the Dempster becomes a priority in terms of what exists, get it upgraded and make it safe so that our people who use it can drive in comfort and safety and not be concerned about any disasters. I wanted to put that plug in.

I also want to talk about bridges, as I know there has been discussion about constructing bridges. There are three crossings on the Dempster Highway, one at Peel River, one at Arctic Red River and then the junction at Arctic Red River and the Mackenzie River. The one that would deserve some looking at, and I am sure there has been some preliminary work done is at the Peel crossing, especially at breakup and freeze-up times. You do not have the highly technical things that go on at the Fort Providence crossing with the bubble hoses and the high-tech ice making equipment. I know it takes much longer when freeze-up comes and when breakup comes. At least traffic can get into the airport at Fort McPherson, and you can get your food goods at those times. We have all heard about the high prices and they tend to get higher, just as in Yellowknife, but more so up in the Delta, when the ferries are not operable.

The other place I would like to put a plug in for is Arctic Red River, the crossing from the highway to the community. I am sure you are aware that Arctic Red River is one of the communities without an airport. They have no access other than by helicopter during spring and freeze-up times. They have always wanted some kind of emergency strip so they can have access to emergency services and regular services. I know that the community is considered to be on the highway, but there just happens to be a river between the highway and the community. I am not sure if any work is being done in that area and I would like to get some comments back from the Minister before I proceed. Thank you.