Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have two areas of concern that I would like to touch on in my comments. The first one, of course, being the proposed plan for increased infrastructure development. As it is clearly recorded in the Hansard of the Legislative Assembly, the issue of chip-sealing Highway No. 5 has been on the table for a considerable amount of time.
Mr. Chairman, I can indicate that no matter what other capital work we have done in the constituency, be it a $2 million airport improvement or upgrading the schools, people would say, "That is very nice, but what about chip-sealing Highway No. 5?" So it is a persistent issue for us. Of course, the feedback that I have received so far indicated support for this and on the face of it, I do support the concept, the idea of being able to access money that may become royalties.
I recognize that there is work to be done in terms of the detail. Very clearly for the people in my constituency, the thought of chip-sealing Highway No. 5 is a major one. On that note, for the Minister to clarify for me, when I look at his comments on page 3 on the bottom, the last paragraph, I am confused by the definitions and when I conclude my question, possibly he could clarify them for me. I notice Highway No. 1 from Fort Liard at Fort Simpson to the junction of Highway No. 7 will have a chip-sealed surface. The entire length of Highway No. 5 from its junction with Highway No. 2 at Hay River all the way to Fort Smith will have an asphalt surface. Similarly, Highway No. 6 will have a continuous asphalt surface and Highway No. 7 will have pavement.
I know in the budget address, the Minister of Finance referred to the covering as paving, so I would appreciate some clarification from the Minister on that particular list of definitions or different terms to refer to different types of asphalt covering on the roads.
The other area I would like to touch on, Mr. Chairman, is the whole issue of the move back to fire protection at the airports. I can remember very well when there used to be those services in my constituency and then the federal government changed the rules, got rid of the equipment and the specialized fire truck that used to be in Fort Smith is at BHP. It made its way through a circuitous route from the community, down south and was picked up by BHP. When we were up there a few weeks ago, they had somehow managed to pick it up through the private market in Alberta.
Now we are talking about trying to put those requirements back in, put the onus back on the communities, though it would appear from what we have heard from the committee report that community fire departments may not be able to meet the requirements. So I will save my detailed questions for that particular issue to the time when we come across it in doing the main estimates, but I would like to note that it is a concern to me, the reinstitution of that requirement by the federal government.
I would hope the federal government is not going to institute rigourous new requirements and no funds and leave us as a community and as a Territory trying to pick up the pieces because of their decision-making having brought us full circle in less than five years in that particular area.
Mr. Chairman, that basically concludes my general comments. I would just appreciate if the Minister would clarify his comments on page 3 of the differing definitions of asphalt surfaces. Thank you.