Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too have been involved in this process and have been on the committee, hearing what the public had to say. I believe that what was stated and what was said at those public hearings clearly shows that we have to somehow get a strategy, an initiative that has buy-in from the general public and the residents of the Northwest Territories to ensure that when we formulate expenditures of this government, that we are meeting the needs of the people in ensuring that the resources are spent. Also, not to affect the economy of the North, the cost of living to a point where everyone is being affected by an initiative of this government regardless of which community you live on, on highways or off highways.

The biggest concern I have is the effect that this will have on the cost of living. The cost of living is high in the Northwest Territories and the cost to small business and the cost to operators who try to manage this toll.

My biggest concern is the notion of highway tolls. It is done around the world. The information I have seen and looked at, there are something like 19 of these tolls, either in the United States or Canada. Out of them, 11 of them are bridges. So realistically, there is something like seven or eight initiatives that fall within the context of highways. I think you are talking about the 401, the Coquihalla Highway and other highways in Canada. The way it works in the United States is that you pay a toll after you have the infrastructure built. So you pay for something that has actually been constructed and completed, not pay for something as you go along. There again, it seems like it does not fall within the criteria that is used elsewhere in Canada. That was something that was brought up.

I know the Minister of Finance, in his comments, made a statement that it would be good if we did put some ideas on the table and try to find solutions to our problems. Well, there were some good ideas that came out through the public review process where the public did give us some ideas. Some of the ideas were we already have systems in place so let us just build on them. We have a payroll tax presently in place, one percent. Can we look at an increase there? The other idea is where is all the money going with regard to the fuel tax? People in the Northwest Territories pay fuel tax and the original intent of the fuel tax was to go into maintenance of highways and roads and things like that, yet it is not there. So where is that money going? Is there a way of streamlining those resources to these type of initiatives?

Another alternative was to seriously go to Ottawa, meet with the federal government and say, "You do have an obligation for infrastructure in the Northwest Territories." Realizing that there have been socio-economic agreements signed between ourselves and different governments, why was the consideration not given at that time to look at the social impact and impacts on our highway systems in the Northwest Territories because of these developments? These are some of the ideas that we heard. Why are we, as residents, paying for an impact that is done by somebody else who is receiving a benefit by the resources here, but we do not get the benefit of those resources because they all flow to Ottawa?

So I think there are means of looking at ways of restructuring this bill in a way so that we hear from the general public out there and the people who run the retail stores, the trucking companies, the people who depend on the movement of goods and services, especially manufacturing. For them to manufacture goods and services, it does not make sense for them to consider importing goods to manufacture exporting goods because the cost of doing that does not make our products competitive. Because of this bill, it impacts a sector of our economy where right now we do not have the ability to compete. We are barely competing at a margin that just makes us competitive. With this idea put in place, it totally eliminates people who want to set up businesses in the North that want to manufacture goods and services.

Another idea that was mentioned, and I think we should seriously consider, is looking at the alternative of spreading what we are trying to accomplish here over a short window of a couple of years and spreading it out over seven or eight years. Instead of trying to do it all in three years, why can we not try to accomplish the same thing in a longer period of time? For me, that makes sense.

The other idea that was raised in the context of how we should do it was from trucking companies and people who make their living running up and down our highway systems, was to put more money into maintenance and upkeep so that people who are working on our highway systems seven days a week, 365 days a year and knowing there is no maintenance happening on weekends, when a lot of traffic does flow up and down our highways.

Some of the ideas we heard from some of the other trucking companies were consideration of reducing speed rates, speed limits and weights that are on our highway systems at certain times of the year where we know the most impact is taking place on our highway systems. So that brings down the cost of maintaining our highway systems, but the impact is greater at certain times of the year.

There are these little things we can do by reducing the speed on our highways and reducing the amount of weight that goes over our highways at certain times of the year. I think these are some of the things that were out there.

I think that is the problem. We are hearing these comments through a public review process that should have taken place before we even got to the state of bringing a bill to this House and then asking the public what they think. It should have gone the other way. We should have gone to the public, had a general review of the whole strategy we have in place for highways, some of the ways we can improve our infrastructure and improve the maintenance cost on our highways and improve the amount of hours we put into maintaining our road systems and also dealing with the little efforts by making certain changes to the way traffic flows in the Northwest Territories. I will mention them again: speed and weight. Those are two things that we have control over.

I think that we also have to look at the realistic concern that most people raise. Why is it that the federal government is getting all these royalties with regard to the diamond industry? The royalties are now flowing to Ottawa, but the impact is here in the North. We have an oil and gas pipeline from Norman Wells that goes South, yet is there any possible way of sitting down with the federal government to renegotiate the formal agreement to make sure we get a big return on our dollar? For every dollar we generate, they take 80 cents. Why is that? Is there a possibility of us sitting down and going down there, full force with as many people as we can? If it takes lobbying on Capital Hill to get it, let us do it.

I think that is something we have to look at and see if that is something we can consider. For myself, I think that we can still accomplish what we want to achieve, but I think we can do it over a longer period of time.

We seriously, as a government and as Members of this Legislature, have to take the time to do our thorough review of the existing strategies and policies that we have in place to allow for highways such as Mr. Miltenberger's highway, allow them to have chip seal. We have to somehow look at the ideas that we do have to expand our infrastructure system to allow for the communities to be tied into them so they feel that they have a buy-in to this system. When you start charging someone for something that is not even on their system, how do you expect to get buy-in? That is something we have to look at. We should take the time before this goes any further. Realistically, see what was said, see what our options are and then come back to the public and say, "We heard you loud and clear. These are the ideas you had." It should come from them, not from us. We have to take the time to allow for that consultation to take place and for ourselves to take the time this time and do it right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am informed that I am the next speaker and I have four minutes. That is good. I do not have much to say and I talk fast, I am told.

On this highway toll, I think there is merit in the philosophy of what is trying to be accomplished. I think the Ministers have come forward today with good responses to some of the input that was heard in the public. I think what they are saying is there is room for movement on some of the things that might mitigate some of the impact on consumers, on people on fixed incomes, people on income support and other specific groups such as manufacturers. There are ways to address these things, but to do nothing is to see the construction and rehabilitation of our highway infrastructure put on hold. I do not think that is a position that shows much leadership.

I think we are facing new and different fiscal issues on a national level than we were and I think that there are pros and cons about this. I think when you do go out for community consultation, no one is going to stand up in any community in the Northwest Territories and say, "Yes, we would like a tax." But a tax is a principle, whether you are talking about municipal taxation in exchange for services, whether you are talking about this kind of taxation in exchange for improved infrastructure, which gives the travelling public and the carriers safer roads, roads that are easier on their equipment.

I think it is necessary for us as leaders to take a look at this. I am encouraged by the comments of the Ministers today on this, whether it is issues of administration, issues of impact. I think what they have done is shown a willingness to address some of these things. I know feedback from my community now on a constituency basis has been mixed. There are people who are in the road construction business who think it would be a great asset to the local economy if they could get some of these contracts and start working on some of these things.

I think that probably Hay River is the least impacted community of any community in the North. Probably, in an interesting way, it makes Hay River, more than ever, a viable place to live and to do business, given its proximity to other transportation options, including the highway.

So I want to see this discussion continue. I do not think there is resistance to the public input that has been received. I would hate to see us not take the opportunity to address this further. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The House will come back to order. Item 20, report of committee of the whole. The honourable Member for North Slave, Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Do we have a seconder for the motion? The honourable Member for Thebacha seconds the motion. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? Thank you. All those opposed? Thank you. The motion is carried. Item 21, third reading of bills. Item 22, orders of the day. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday, November 5, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.

-- ADJOURNMENT

The House adjourned at 2:00 p.m.