Thank you, Mr. Minister. Item 13, tabling of documents. Item 14, notices of motion. Item 15, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 16, motions. Item 17, first reading of bills. Item 18, second reading of bills. Item 19, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters: Bills 9, 10, 14; Tabled Document 42-14(4), Tabled Document 51-14(4); and Committee Report 8-14(4), with Mr. Krutko in the chair.

I would like to call committee of the whole to order. We have several items to deal with: Bill 9, Bill 10, Bill 14, Tabled Document 42-14(4), Tabled Document 51-14(4) and Committee Report 8-14(4). What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to recommend that the committee consider Committee Report 8-14(4).

Does the committee agree?

With that, we will take a short break and continue on with Committee Report 8-14(4).

-- Break

I will call the committee of the whole back to order. Prior to our break, we decided to deal with Committee Report 8-14(4). General comments. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Commercial Vehicle Trip Permit Act is one of two pieces of enabling legislation necessary to implement the government's Highway Investment Strategy. The Commercial Vehicle Trip Permit Act belongs with the Transportation portfolio and, in its simplest terms, authorizes the department to issue permits and collect fees from commercial vehicles carrying cargo over the territorial highway system. This revenue will be used to improve our existing highway system.

The Highway Investment Strategy that proposes to finance the construction with fees paid into a dedicated highway fund has generated a great deal of controversy.

The Department of Transportation receives continuing complaints regarding the condition of our highway system from communities, residents, businesses and travellers; complaints about the quality of gravel, dust, potholes, washboards and narrow width.

There have been allegations that our highways are unsafe, dangerous and a public hazard. The coroner's office implies that highway standards might be a contributing factor in highway accidents. The Highway Investment Strategy will improve the condition of the existing highways in the Northwest Territories.

Investing in Roads for the People and the Economy, a Highway Strategy for the Northwest Territories identified short-term funding needs on the existing highway system of $196 million. Over the long term, the funding needs a total of $630 million.

The Highway Investment Strategy proposes to spend $148 million over four years to catch up to these needs. One hundred million dollars of this amount will be raised through collections from heavy truck traffic on existing highways as proposed by Bill 9.

The benefits to the Highway Investment Strategy are numerous: paved roads, relieved public concerns about highway safety, better roads means less wear and tear on vehicles, better fuel consumption, lower maintenance costs and reduced travelling time. Tourist traffic will increase and visitors to our North will enjoy a pleasant, relaxed driving experience, no longer a challenging endurance test or horror stories to repeat back home about the NWT.

Mr. Chairman, at the public review into the Commercial Vehicle Trip Permit Act, I heard several criticisms of the act, which the government is prepared to consider.

First and foremost, the public wanted assurances that the collection of trip permit fees would not continue indefinitely. The government will also consider a sunset clause that would repeal the Commercial Vehicle Trip Permit Act on March 31, 2007. This change would give the public the confidence that trip permit fees will not become a permanent source of government revenue.

Secondly, the trucking industry and retailers indicated that it did not support basing the permit fee on a truck's axle configuration. The industry indicated that it would prefer a system based on the truck's actual load weight. Mr. Chairman, the government will consider an alternative to enable the permit fees to be determined on the basis of a truck's declared gross vehicle weight.

More importantly, Mr. Chairman, I ask the committee to give its support to the principle behind the Highway Investment Strategy and its specific enabling legislation we are considering before us today. Through all the public hearings, there was solid agreement from all parties on one point; our territorial public highways are in poor shape and are badly in need of improving. Indeed, I think every Member of this House at one time or another has called my attention to the substandard conditions of our highways and asked me to improve them and bring them up to higher standards.

The Members of this House have also approved our main estimates. They know how much money the government has and how it has been appropriated. In speaking to the Department of Transportation's annual appropriations, I have always pointed out that it is not sufficient to keep up with the needs for life cycle capital restoration.

Mr. Chairman, I fear the consequences of not proceeding now will have a negative impact on our economy and northern business community. The Department of Transportation will be forced to review its current and short-term construction programs. Proposed contracts on Highway No. 3, Highway No. 4 and Highway No. 8 would need to be put on hold. The capital program identified in the current main estimates would require significant change.

Highway construction will create northern business opportunities. Highway construction will create meaningful jobs for Northerners. These opportunities will be moved to the future.

In order to protect the existing highway investment, additional measures may be taken to ensure our highways remain safe and will not be damaged by increased resource traffic.

The Highway Investment Strategy recognizes our predicament and proposes a solution. It identifies the highway capital improvements that are long past due and includes the means to pay for them. As the Minister responsible for the state of our highway system, I am afraid that we cannot wait for the federal government to recognize the fundamental inequity of improving new resource developments that assume the use and wearing out of our roads while pocketing all the royalties.

As we wait and complain, the highways keep wearing out and the restoration falls even further behind. The longer we wait, the more expensive it gets. Permit fees are not a happy solution, Mr. Chairman, however, I have heard no short-term alternatives to this initiative. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I would like to ask the Minister if he is willing to share his comments with the other Members of the House. Are you open to that?

Mr. Chairman, are you suggesting copies? No problem. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Any comments with regard to Committee Report 8-14(4)? Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to make some comments in response to the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development's report on the public review of Bills 9 and 10.

For the last two years this House has heard many comments from Members on the poor condition of the NWT's highways, in particular, Highway No. 3 between Yellowknife and Rae. There appears to be a broad consensus that our highways urgently need upgrading. The Highway Investment Strategy, including the Commercial Vehicle Trip Permit Fee, is the government's response to these concerns. This strategy is the most workable alternative given the fiscal tools available to us.

The fee itself reflects the fact that much of the wear on the highway system is caused by large trucks. Levying the trip permit fee raises highway improvement funds from those who are responsible for most of the need for improvements. Some have suggested ways the government could borrow to meet the needs for improvements.

Mr. Chairman, borrowing the money for the highway improvement would only be part of the solution. Borrowed money needs to be paid back and any plan to borrow to meet our needs is incomplete if it does not include a method of repaying both the amounts borrowed as well as the interest on that money.

Since the strategy was outlined in the House earlier this year, we have seen a major change in the national economic outlook. The slowdown is expected to have an adverse effect on federal, provincial and territorial budgets. The links between our formula financing revenues and provincial spending and national economic growth mean that we may have even less fiscal flexibility to achieve our objectives without new revenue sources.

It has been suggested that the federal government should pay for part of the cost of highway improvements because it receives most of the benefits through resource royalties from the resource development that is contributing to the damage to our highways.

We agree and will continue to make this case to the federal government. However, we cannot delay the work on our highways while we wait for the federal government to respond.

It has also been suggested that improvements could be paid for by reducing other government spending. Given our current needs in health and education and other critical social programs, I do not believe that this option is workable.

During the public review of the bills, Mr. Chairman, there were strong objections voiced regarding the proposed fee, particularly related to its impact on consumers and northern businesses.

The government has listened to these concerns and is prepared to make changes to address them. Many people have expressed concern about the effect the fee would have on lower income people in the Northwest Territories. The increase to the cost of living credit passed in July partly addressed this concern, but not enough for many.

If the Highway Strategy is implemented, the government is prepared to consider further enriching the Cost of Living Tax Credit to provide for a minimum credit regardless of income level and will have the fiscal flexibility to consider introducing additional measures to reduce income tax for all NWT residents, based on recommendations of the Minister's Advisory Committee on Personal Income Taxation. These could include measures specifically targeted for seniors and people with disabilities.

Earlier this year, we increased social assistance food rates by an average of 7.8 percent and we made a commitment to monitor the effect of the fees on prices in the Northwest Territories. We are prepared to increase benefits for income support recipients and other programs for low-income individuals and families to reduce the impact of the fee. In addition to the changes proposed by the Minister of Transportation, I will propose several changes to the fund legislation itself.

Some people have requested that the legislation include a sunset clause. As Mr. Steen has mentioned, we are prepared to amend the legislation to ensure the fee and the fund end in five years, on March 31, 2007.

We are also prepared to commit that any new funds provided by the federal government for highway improvements will be used to offset the highway investment strategy expenditures and that the term of the fee would be reviewed in light of any such funding.

Concern was raised by the committee about our manufacturing sector. Our government has worked long and hard to ensure that we are building a manufacturing industry in the Northwest Territories. We have not overlooked or dismissed the concerns raised by manufacturers. In fact, as we speak, we have a committee made up of government officials and representatives of the manufacturing sector who are considering a manufacturing incentive program.

I hope these changes and those announced my Mr. Steen will address the concerns that have been expressed about the Highway Investment Strategy.

Mr. Chairman, finally, with all due respect, I have to say I am disappointed by the absence of clear options from the committee's review except to explore other options that we have spent a lot of the last year working on, or to lobby the federal government for more dollars.

I had hoped that if the committee shares the government's concerns about highway conditions, we would have heard more clear recommendations. I sincerely hope, Mr. Chairman, that we can continue to work together to develop those options to enable us to have the means to be able to improve our highway system. That, I am sure, is a concern that all of us share.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to say thank you to the committee for their report and the work that they did in holding the public hearings on this matter. I still believe there are ways we can work together to come up with a program that will resolve the concerns you have heard from the public and at the same time see much improved infrastructure for safer travel by all Northwest Territories residents. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Handley, I would like to ask if you are open to sharing your comments in regard to the report with your colleagues in the House?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to do that. Some of it is in handwriting, but I am prepared to share it. Thank you.

Thank you for that, Mr. Minister. I have Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank the committee for the extensive work they did in reviewing these two pieces of legislation. I know that countless hours of work, public community consultation were involved and I think that, coupled with the profile that these proposed pieces of legislation had in the media and the minds of the public, it was important to do a very thorough and good job on this. I believe they have done so and I want to thank my colleagues for all of the work they have put in.

I would also like to acknowledge that the government, I do agree, has heard from Members of this House continually that we need to do something to fix the state of our highways.

Mr. Chairman, while I do applaud them for coming forward with a proposal that would address these concerns, I think they have heard loud and clear from the public, and I am quoting from the committee's report: "All presenters agreed that roads need improvement, but this strategy is the wrong way to do it." I would concur with that assessment, Mr. Chairman. I think there are various problems that have been raised and the committee has hit on all of them. I just want to key on a few of the ones that I specifically have had difficulty with and have been raised continually by my constituents when they were talking to me about the proposed pieces of legislation.

One of the key things that I heard in talking to my constituents was the need for transparency and predictability. I believe in the letter submitted to committee from RTL Robinson, the point was made that a cost of a 15 pound bag of potatoes could vary, depending on several factors to be taken into account by the time it got to its destination, wherever that would be within the Northwest Territories. That should not be the case. When we are talking about transparency, Mr. Chairman, the cost of potatoes should not go up because the configuration of a truck was different from week to week and it should not depend on whether or not the truck was full, not full or half full.

I think a lot of these trucking companies now, as was clearly presented to committee, do not wait for a truck to be full before coming up. They are on a schedule. They leave whether the trucks are full or not because a lot of these goods are time-sensitive, Mr. Chairman. I think the government failed to address these concerns with any viable alternative.

Consumers need to see -- and I know I have heard the Minister of Transportation say that they were not concerned about the consumers in this respect because there are other things that consumers cannot be assured of --, but consumers need to see a line item on a waybill when they have freight shipped to them that clearly indicates what the toll amounted is for the goods they received and had shipped. This has to be able to be reconciled with the legislation. I do not think consumers are willing to take the word of an outside agency administering this toll and do not want to have to call trucking companies and ask what the configuration of a truck was and get into disputes over these kinds of things. I think transparency and predictability were never sufficiently addressed in my mind and indeed in the minds of many of my constituents.

The cost of living increase is another point that came across loud and clear. I think the problem here was, and probably even the government may or may not, but I would hope they would acknowledge that they should have looked a little more thoroughly at exactly what the impact might be to northern households. It is one thing to say that we cannot tell, for instance, what the spending patterns for every individual household are. We can only take averages so we cannot give you anything written in stone as to what the impact might be per family, but I think that would be one extreme.

I think what they did was the other extreme. If I look in the report, some research conducted by Ellis Consulting for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines indicated that when the government was looking at the cost to the typical family in the Northwest Territories, the data they analyzed and provided only looked at the impact on groceries, heating fuel and motor fuel for a family. According to Stats Canada, that is only 20 percent of 1998 Northwest Territories household expenditures.

Although we cannot tell what every individual family will purchase in regard to cars, building materials, air tickets, these kinds of things, I think that Northwest Territories households would obviously be impacted. Eighty percent of goods and services to be purchased by households were excluded. I think a lot more work at the front end should have been done by our government in analyzing the true cost to northern residents.

Mr. Handley has indicated that he is disappointed that the committee did not come forward with any other options or proposed suggestions as to how this could be retooled and would receive support. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe that is the Minister's job. We sit here and analyze the proposed legislation. It is not for us to go outside the scope of that bill and take other alternatives and take those and shop those around to the public. That is for the Minister to do.

I had a deja vu experience as he was reading his notes and suggested he was disappointed because I remember exactly the same comments with regard to the hotel tax. I had the same feeling at that time, that it is not for this committee to now propose alternatives to a hotel tax or to this legislation and then go out and shop those around to the public. It is for the government with all of its resources and staff and departments and expertise to roll those out to the public and see what the response is.

Still on cost of living increase, the Minister does have at his disposal several tools which could offset the increase in the cost of living. He has already taken some steps in this Assembly. He has raised the northern tax credit to an additional maximum of $177 per tax filer. That would be for folks at the high end. Others would receive less. I will give him credit for that. I think that was certainly a needed adjustment, but many have argued that we were due for an adjustment in this area. I think the last time it was looked at was 1993 and certainly this adjustment was justified with or without the proposed change to legislation.

He does have other tools available to him, Mr. Chairman, certainly taxation policy. He established a tax on income committee and they will come forward with recommendations to the Minister. He will present his thoughts to us. I hope he seriously considers aggressively lowering taxes. This is one thing he can do to address the cost of living increase. Of course, there is a cost to that to this government and the cost to that does affect programs and services. I think we all acknowledge that, but I think it is a discussion we need to sit down and have.

He also talked about possible sunsetting and analyzing the true impact after a certain period of time. Those are good suggestions as well, but unfortunately, they are too little, too late. I think it still does not address the issue of transparency and predictability. I have no way to present my case after a year of the toll to the Minister as to what the true impact to my household has been. I will not see when I go to Wal-Mart or will not see when I go to the grocery store exactly what the impact was on certain goods that I am purchasing, especially this 80 percent of goods that the government has neglected to analyze in their numbers.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the committee for all their work, but I want to reiterate one main point before I leave this issue and that is clearly I think we all recognize, and I think the public should recognize, that these proposed pieces of legislation are a plan B. We are sitting here and even discussing and debating this issue because, as the Minister has suggested, it would be irresponsible to borrow money without some way to raise revenue.

The reason he has had to come forward with these new proposed revenue-raising initiatives is because our Non-Renewable Resource Strategy has been a dismal failure. I believe the Premier talked about getting a down payment on the Non-Renewable Resource Strategy almost two years ago. This is a strategy of many, many millions -- hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Chairman. Our down payment was something like $3 million to do some work on some roads and bridges. It is hardly a down payment. I think if the federal government is going to continue to ignore us and continue to refuse to help us in this area, there is only so much that we can go to our residents for, to ask them to shoulder the costs of these needed infrastructure investments. It is not feasible to think that 40,000 people can pay for all these highways and for all these needed upgrades.

I hope that we all continue to remember and recognize that this is really a plan B because we have had an absolute failure at getting any money for our Non-Renewable Resource Strategy.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for all its work and again thank the government for coming forward with initiatives; but they are, as we all realize, going to have to come back with something better. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. At this time, I would like to recognize the people in the audience, the young men and ladies, for coming today to see what goes on in the House here. Welcome to the House.

-- Applause

Next on my list I have Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a member of committee, I have had ample opportunity to hear everyone's concerns, and as much to voice my own ideas and thoughts on the bill. I think at this time, I will not go over ground that I am on the record for and have good exposure. The one area I would like to address or repeat, and I think it is worth repeating, is the responsibility and the obligation on government to consult as broadly as possible with the stakeholders and with the people affected and involved in initiatives like this. I would go even beyond consultation, whatever that is, Mr. Chairman. From time to time, it seems to take on different meanings or different levels of significance, depending on the issue.

Here is one, especially an area because it is so broad, because it is potentially so expensive and has such a broad impact, where I would argue that inclusion, not just consulting with stakeholders or people directly involved, but including them in the development of answers and ways to get things done, is something that I think would have probably brought us much further along in this process than where we find ourselves today.

When the initiative was first brought forward to us in committee and earlier this year in legislation, other Members and I, as well as people in the general public, really wanted to have a lot more to do at the exploratory stage to put forward options, to bring their own areas of expertise into developing a solution. We urged government to do so, but it really was not something that was delivered on, Mr. Chairman.

I have documentation, for instance, from the NWT Chamber of Mines, which was a very strong proponent of not only getting roads done, but of making sure that everybody had a say in how it could be done. It just does not seem that the government can demonstrate at all that it really did sit down with people in the mining industry. The commercial trucking industry, essentially the same, Mr. Chairman; there were no serious attempts made to consult, let alone include, these various sectors in building this plan.

Some of the proposals that Mr. Steen and Mr. Handley brought forward do help to address concerns that were raised. They indicate to me a willingness on the government's part to go back to the drawing board. I am prepared to do that. In fact, I would urge the government to do that. It has been stated very, very clearly that there is very much a need and an appetite to see and I believe, Mr. Chairman, to pay for some level out of our own pockets and our own businesses.

There is some appetite to help pay for improvement in the road investment strategy, but there is so little confidence in what the impact would be, how long it would go and this kind of thing. It was that lack of confidence, and I would suggest the lack of buy-in and the lack of inclusion in helping to find the solution, that caused this whole initiative to really come to a halt.

If the government is prepared to lay out not only some of these alternatives, but really a sincere, pragmatic and practical way of bringing other sectors and other expertise into designing the solution, I think we are going to stand a much better chance of getting something done that is badly needed, that is not argued, that people want to have confidence in the way we go about it, inviting them to the table at the earliest possible stage to help build a plan. Not just react to something, but help build a plan. I think we could have success. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to reiterate what we had stated in going through this process. As chairman of the committee, I had to be very neutral, in a sense, when we were listening to those who would come forward and make presentations. I myself have not had much opportunity, besides one-on-one discussions with other individuals of what I felt about this initiative.

These bills, Mr. Speaker, have definitely generated overwhelming interest in comparison to other bills of this Assembly or previous Assemblies. We have had large turnouts. We have had a lot of submissions made and the talk in the streets, in coffee shops has been a lot about what this government has been trying to do through this initiative. Even when one went to buy groceries, that seemed to be a place that would spark it as well. It is something.

As we have stated and I have heard as well, there is a need to repair our roads. How do we go about doing that? The Minister said he was disappointed that we never went into any specific details. I agree with what Mr. Bell stated, that our initiative at this point was to go out with the legislation as it was presented and get feedback from residents in the Territories. The Territories were very clear at the public hearings of how they felt this initiative would impact them. We went in the report to list those and list them as accurately as they were presented.

I believe that if there is to be another initiative of this nature done, that we have tried to open the doors, in a sense, for government and industry and private sector to come together and work on an initiative. Most clearly, what was presented to us in every hearing we held was that this option should be stopped. It should be cancelled. In fact, one presenter in Norman Wells stated it should hit the shredder and we should start over.

I think that is what we are trying to do here, is to open the door to the possibility of stakeholders and aboriginal groups in communities and this government to work together to come up with something that would be seen to be more effective, in the sense of spreading the load and the burden on this and not increasing the cost of living to the limits that would start increasing the hardships we already face as a government.

For example, in recruiting of nurses and doctors and teachers, of tradesmen now, we hear the large companies say they are having difficulty in recruiting people to work, not only from the Northwest Territories, but from other jurisdictions. As people come North and when they land in a community for the first time, the reality of where they have moved to hits them rather hard when they first go to get their supplies, their first bits of groceries and they see what they have to pay for goods in the Northwest Territories compared to where they had come from if they were in Alberta, Ontario, British Columbia or even the southern parts of this Territory. When they go further north, the costs go up by a lot, huge numbers in some cases.

That is where we have concerns from residents of the Territories listing their concerns as to the amount of analyses that was done, understanding that it was difficult to try to pinpoint what an average family would use on a yearly basis. The government went to three main issues: groceries, home heating oil, and automotive fuel.

However, there are a lot of areas and I will use my experience, Mr. Chairman. I have a large family, a young growing family. The estimates given -- and I am probably one that does not fit into the demographics of 2.5 children. I have five at home. Living in a community that is farther from the border and the costs of goods to be transported are higher to begin with just because of the distance, children do not just survive on shelter and food. There is clothing that needs to be bought and anybody who has young children knows that children can grow fast and you have to replace clothing on a fairly regular basis. They tend to wear them out rather quickly. So it is those areas that I, as well, share with the constituents and their concerns that would come forward.

Initially, Mr. Chairman, there was not a lot of concern from the Beaufort-Delta area about expanding the repair or construction of the Dempster Highway. It was known that the initial amount for the construction and widening was $2.5 million that was an ongoing commitment that was in the five-year capital plan and remained there. This new money would help accelerate that, but in fact, four years of extra money would not complete the Dempster Highway. We would get a number of kilometres done, but still be short. So there is an area of concern. There was a lot of debate that came out of this and some negative comments of people and interpretations of what was happening. I know it was not taken very well.

For example, in the community of Inuvik when the Minister of Transportation went up to the community and held a public meeting with the town council, an individual presented a petition at that time to the Minister. The Minister's remarks were taken quite negatively by the people who were there when he stated that anybody would sign a petition, that when they went to a grocery store and a petition was presented, anybody would sign it. Then he used the remark that if you give them a petition at the end of the Dempster Highway, everybody would sign. Well, that is fairly accurate, Mr. Chairman. Nobody wants to see an increase in the cost of goods, so they are going to sign that. That is true to a degree.

However, I think a lot of people on principle feel that initiatives of this nature should not be investigated by a territorial government in light of our the cost of living to residents already.

Mr. Chairman, as well, people driving the Dempster Highway, when they get to the end of it, it is a long section. It is all gravel. They would probably say at the end of it, yes, I would like this road to be widened and fixed and chip sealed or paved, but we know that is not going to happen. Even if this proposal went ahead, the widening would not happen right to the community. We would still have a gravel road for 700 and some kilometres before we would still the first chip seal, that being from Inuvik to Klondike Corner, as we call it. It is over 700 kilometres.

Mr. Chairman, as a committee, we have tried to do our best in hearing from the people and presenting their situation and their concerns to this Assembly. I hope, as we stated, that the government reviews this, that they as well were hearing from their constituents, because many constituents from all over the Territories spoke to this issue. I hope that Cabinet and those that were sponsoring these bills were listening and paying attention to their constituents, that this would be too hard as heard.

Mr. Chairman, those who did speak in favour were very few indeed. I think we have to take that into consideration when we are reviewing bills and proposals put forward by this government. With that, Mr. Chairman, I conclude my remarks and I stand by our committee report and hope that the government is listening to the people. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on my list I have Mr. Lafferty, Ms. Lee and Mr. Nitah. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of this committee, so I think that I could just refer to the committee report and findings of the report as an expression of where I stand on this issue. Following on the statements made by the Ministers, I would just like to emphasize a couple of points. The first one is the problem I have with the government's response that we have not provided any options or solutions to this problem. I think what the Minister is trying to say is that we have not suggested a solution that they like, but that does not mean that we did not provide an option, Mr. Chairman.

There seems to be repetition of the same sort of argument that was made when the hotel tax was being introduced. It seems that the approach this government has is if you want more money for tourism, you have to accept the hotel tax. If you want a safe and better road, you have to pay us $100 million. I think this government has to realize once and for all that this economy just does not have a tax base to cough up $100 million. The government budget a year is only $850 million and to expect that the government can somehow collect the money that they need to do something as basic as building roads is out of line. To say that because we do not accept it, that we are not making a productive suggestion, is a little more than agitating, I must say.

I think that we need to realize that 40,000 people cannot be expected to pay the money to build 2,200 kilometres of road or to keep that road maintained at a level that is acceptable. For me, it is a matter of priorities for the government. This government, for the last two years, has had more money coming in every year than ever expected. We really have gone through really good financial times.

I think the government should take a serious look at itself, at how irresponsible they are to spend money when there is extra money coming in on everything, but the roads.

To suggest that only because we are rejecting the proposal to force $100 million out of these people is to say that we do not care about the roads is really irresponsible as well.

This government has a budget of between $850 to $900 million. We are talking about an extra $15 million to put on the roads. To say that we are going to set up a system by way of a highway toll, that has a number of questions there that have not been addressed. It is really not doing a service to the public.

At the moment, we do not know whether or not we will be penalized by way of formula financing renegotiations. There are a lot of questions about the severe impact that this will have on the manufacturing industry. It is not just a severe impact. It will be a question of whether or not the egg producer in Hay River or the fibreglass manufacturer in Yellowknife would survive. We are looking at a very, very serious implication about what it would mean to our communities.

This sends a very unfriendly message to the resource industry that is investing money here. I think we have to accept that as much as we want to think that we are on the road to economic prosperity, we should be preparing for it and making the right investment. The fact is, we are not a fully functioning economy. We are not a mature economy. We still get money from the federal government by way of a grant. We have to accept that. We are not able to raise a substantial amount of money by way of raising taxes. That is just a simple fact.

I think I was quoted as saying in one of the committee meetings that maybe if Highway No. 3 becomes so unsafe, we may have to contemplate shutting it down for a time or something like that. I have to correct that. I was not meaning to be irresponsible or reckless, but for me that is an indication of the priority that this government is prepared to put on that highway.

To say that you have asked a hundred questions in the House so you have to vote for this $100 million revenue source idea is not logical. I think if it happens that Highway No. 3 has to be closed or its speed reduced drastically, or Highway No. 4 has to be closed because it is not safe, or the Dempster Highway or Fort Simpson, the responsibility for that will fall squarely on the shoulders of this Cabinet because somewhere along the way, you have decided how you are going to spend $850 million. Somewhere along the way, decisions were made that you could only spend $20 million in transportation for roads and everything else has to go everywhere else. If that is the government's decision, then you have to live by that.

The government has to make priorities and if you cannot find it, then you have to answer to the public. To say that we are free from responsibility because we have suggested an idea that by all accounts is not workable, we are not able to do a system by weight because we do not have weight scales, we cannot do all sorts of things because we do not have the infrastructure to make this tax system or this revenue-raising system as economical and as logical as possible -- this proposal has a lot more problems than the lack of a tax base to collect it from.

Administratively, it is very, very cumbersome. The truck drivers and the truck operators who came and talked to us laid out very clearly what the problem areas are.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that the statement from the government that we are not suggesting anything productive is totally rejected on my part. I think that responsibility has to fall squarely on the shoulders of the Cabinet to say that, as much as the Cabinet pays lip service to it, road building and road maintaining is for some reason not a priority.

I have no intention to stop asking questions and stop demanding that more money be spent on Highway No. 3. I think it is time for the government to go back and figure out where the priority is and what priority road building is. If the government decides that everything else comes first, then it has to stand up and be counted on that decision. Thank you.