Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Vician.

Thank you, Mr. Vician. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could the Minister confirm if that means that in the coming summer, for example, if those deficiencies are recognized, we could get a commitment that we would be able to keep it in there and put it to use as opposed to having it re-allocated? Otherwise, it seems to me there is not much incentive from a local point of view for managers to really save a lot of money in their region if it is going to be taken away from them. It seems to me that the incentive would be to spend it on other things. If you cannot spend it on chip seal, you might as well buy equipment. You might as well buy whatever else you need to beef up your own operation.

Could the Minister clarify the deputy's comments? At this point? What does that mean? Would that mean there would be some comfort or assurance knowing that if the highway's operation around Fort Smith is efficient and realizes some savings, they would be to able put it to use in Fort Smith on that section of road from Sandy Lake to Salt Mountain? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will ask Mr. Vician to respond to that.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Vician.

Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very depressing kind of discussion, where on every turn we are basically stifled. If there is money that will probably be taken if efficiencies are realized, if there is capital money, we are down the list and basically off the page. Is there anything in terms of any other creative solutions that the Minister or deputy can offer, other than this bleak proclamation that you are out of luck for the future and forever more?

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Member realizes the difficulty in trying to respond to that particular question. The only possible suggestion that I could put forward is that Members would do whatever they could to support the mission of the government to obtain more funding for Highway No.3 from the federal government. That would, as the Member knows, provide funding that we could apply elsewhere on our highway systems. At this point, that is the only conceivable bright spot in the future that I can put forward as a suggestion of possible further funding.

As the deputy suggested, the funding has to be in such a manner that wherever we save in some regions, we put it towards needs in other regions. I am sure the Members are well aware that the department has been doing this, of course with the input from the Members. It is a necessity to have that input. We must also keep in mind that in order to attract or to put in place chip-sealing on the highways, the highways have to be first brought up to standards to be able to maintain the chip seal. That in itself is not a small project. So if we are talking savings in some area that we could put towards hard-topping or chip-sealing, we are looking at a fair amount before we can have enough to go out and suggest chip-sealing on portions of the highway, without specific amounts that would appear sufficient to attract a contractor. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. General comments, questions. Mr. Nitah.

Thank you, Mr. Nitah. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Member for bringing this issue to the attention of the department. I have already had some discussions with the Member on this particular issue. I would like to give him my assurance that the department will be taking into consideration his concerns. Regardless of whether we have anything in our capital to identify towards Highway No. 6, the fact of the matter is that we have said we would keep our highways in safe driving conditions. If this particular stretch of highway requires immediate attention of capital, we will do everything we have to do in order to bring the highway back into safe standards. With that, I can convince my department to work with the Member, and we will try to address the particular issue. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Nitah.

Thank you, Mr. Nitah. Mr. Steen, any comments on that?

Mr. Chairman, as I said, if fixing the problem is necessary, we will do it to bring it to safe standards. We will work with the Member to assure that the particular area that is referred to is what we are going to be directing our attention to. Again, I would have to emphasize that the department has the ability, if necessary, to request supplementary funds in order to address specific emergencies and repairs to the highways. But, again, I say that it would depend on the condition of the highway and whether or not the situation demands that type of funding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. General comments. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister for a bit of clarification on an item that is on page 205 on the notes that we were given about the regional distribution of funds. Under headquarters, there is a line that says new road planning studies, preliminary planning target for the year, $335,000 and $235,000 for the interim period. Does this refer to studies for new or future roads? Or is this new studies on existing roads? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Steen.

Mr. Chairman, the program was tied in with the Northwest Territories highway strategy which included new roads. As I mentioned yesterday, it would include your own highway, north into the slave geological basin, as well as a road from Wrigley north, right to the Beaufort sea. Thank you.