Thank you, Mr. Braden. We are three for three. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple general comments, Madam Chair. Again, I would like to raise a question in regard to the Tuk-Inuvik highway. Once again it is being left out in the capital plan. Some time back, a couple of years ago the Department of Transportation constructed one kilometre of our 22-kilometre road along the highway from Tuk to Inuvik, and stopped funding that. When I take a look at the amount of money in the Minister's opening remarks, $580,000 is allocated for the community and local access road program, but that is divided amongst a number of communities. So that doesn't really give us much money to work with.

The first question I have, Madam Chair, on page 5 in that regard, is how would you determine points of local interest, where do you start? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the access road program has been around for some time now and the Member is quite correct. We have been providing dollars to the community of Tuk for an access road program. The criteria in terms of what is considered designated sites is really left in the hands of the communities. The community determines the points of interest that they would like to provide transportation access to. So it is in the hands of the communities.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In that case, Madam Chair, may I ask the Minister, our point of interest locally is to go to Inuvik, that is our point. So can that fall in line with your opening statement? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. McLeod

Madam Chair, our program under the access road program provides a maximum of $50,000 a year. The Tuk-Inuvik road is budgeted at $100 million for the total project. It is going to take a long time if

we are going to use this program to do it. However, having said that, we have looked at the Tuk-Inuvik road as part of our long-term vision. Accessing dollars for this project falls under the responsibility of the federal government. We have been monitoring the development of this issue. There was a number of engineering studies done by the federal government. We are encouraging the federal government to invest in this piece of infrastructure, however, to date we haven't been successful. I would also like to add that initially we did have it as a part of the submission under Corridors for Canada, however, it was felt that this was more a federal responsibility than a cost-shared project.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In his opening remarks, again I will refer to it, if you take a look at Highway No. 4, there is $3 million allocated for that. Again, it is the way they allocate funds I guess. I think in order for us to strive ahead, we should really think about the Tuk-Inuvik highway. That will create a lot of local employment, business and training. I think it is a good opportunity right now that we could work towards. I understand, Madam Chair, what the Minister is stating in regard to the way the fund works but, again, I would like to make one more point that on my list right now in my constituency they really want to see that highway between Tuk and Inuvik. At least we can get out of Tuk in the summertime and go somewhere just like everybody else. Just more of a comment, but we would like to continue to fight that battle, and I will continue to do so for the next three-and-a-half years. That is my plan. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for that, Mr. Pokiak. I will take that as a comment and I will go next to Mr. Ramsay for general comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks, Ms. Cook and Mr. Neudorf, for joining us this afternoon, and our colleague, Mr. McLeod. Just some general comments.

I will start off with talking about the Ingraham Trail if I could, and that is something that I don't feel over the last four to eight years that the government has made enough of an effort on trying to put more emphasis on the fact that what is the Ingraham Trail, the 70 kilometres that goes northeast from the city of Yellowknife will in fact one day be the beginning of a road into the slave geological province. I believe that there is an expenditure here of $3 million over the next five years for a total of $15 million, but I think if the government can finally admit to it and say that this is the road that is going to head into this geological province, then that is money well spent. We should do whatever we can and I would encourage the government to do whatever it can to make the road as good as possible, because it will be the start of this all-weather road into the slave geological province. If that is not the case -- and I am from Yellowknife so I am going to say that it should be the case -- then I think we have to perhaps start looking at some alternatives to that, because I think a road into our resource area is necessary and will be necessary in the foreseeable future. So I would encourage the government to finally take a stand on this and admit to that being the start of an all-weather road into the slave geological province.

A few years back the government spent some money on fixing up the road, and it didn't really fix it up, it was more patchwork, and there wasn't a lot of engineering that went into it obviously because after the road work was completed, a few weeks later was coming apart in certain areas. I am a big believer that if you are going to spend money, you spend it and you do something right. I believe some of that money perhaps was just a quick fix, and maybe should have been put together to do it more thoroughly than it was at the time. That would be a comment on the Ingraham Trail. I'd agree that it stays in here because I am going to fight the fight that that is the beginning of the all-weather road into the slave geological province.

The next thing I wanted to talk about was the Bear River project, and I know Mr. Delorey had some questions of the Premier earlier today actually that questioned the cost of steel increasing 66 percent, and what that might do to a project like the Bear River project which is slated to cost $25 million, and if it costs 66 percent more to construct that bridge that could become quickly problematic for the government to find the funding to do that. As an aside to that, I don't know if putting a bridge over the Bear River will help lengthen the ice road season, because there are a number of stream crossings and other crossings on that route that melt at the same time. So I am not quite 100 percent convinced that this will prolong the season for that road.

Another comment I would have is on the Norman Wells airport project. I had questions when committee was looking at this with the Minister and his staff. It went from being $3.6 million one year and then to $7.7 million the next year. I had requested an explanation from the Minister and his staff on how something could cost $3.6 million one year and $7.7 million the next year. If you talk about a class B estimate versus a class C estimate, and there still is some confusion here for me that if we could have accomplished what we wanted to accomplish with $3.6 million, why is it really necessary to spend $7.7 million. If it is just because we have the money from this airports capital assistance program, then I don't know if that is the right way to do it. Just because we have the money, we are going to spend it. That is just a comment for the Minister.

The Yellowknife airport; that is an interesting topic in and of itself. The fact that the department has set out on a pretty grandiose kind of scheme for the Yellowknife airport, and it is estimated to cost upwards of $120 million in the next 10 to 15 years, and I know we have to put the new security measures in place at the current terminal building, but the current terminal building, Madam Chair, was completely renovated in the early 1990s if I am not mistaken. I know that security measures are something new, but certainly passenger levels and forecasting into the future should have been taken into consideration when the government spent millions of dollars upgrading the current facility, and if they weren't then, obviously they are now because this plan is quite something.

I know I talked about it the other day, but this access road into the Kam Lake Industrial Park and how that works into this airport expansion, I would like to see that somehow come to a conclusion so the City of Yellowknife can know whether or not that road can run through this parcel of land in the immediate future. It is something that the city desperately needs to see happen.

Onto the repatriation of the licensing function. I know that when the Department of Transportation privatized the function, the role of issuing licenses and registrations, they allowed the contractor to charge a fee of $8.50 on each licence. As I understand it, the department is still charging that $8.50 charge on all licences and registrations that they issue. The problem that I have with that is that $8.50 goes directly into, as I call it, the black hole, and doesn't really go to a specified activity. What I would recommend to the Minister is that perhaps the department look at calling it a levy or calling it something else, and channelling that money. There is, I think, 22,000 registered vehicles in the Northwest Territories, and if everybody pays $8.50, that is a small pot of money but it could go into road improvements, or roadside turnout improvements and things of that nature instead of just disappearing into the revenue fund. That is something I think the department should take a look at. I think that is about all I had. Maybe a question for the Minister is will he take a look at perhaps calling that $8.50 something else and channelling it towards roadside turnouts or road improvements, or something of that nature so that people don't really feel that bad about paying it and it just disappearing? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the Department of Transportation, like all departments, has to abide by the FAA rules. We were going to charge a user fee and expected it to be used for other things in the department, however, that may cause some problems. We would certainly raise it with the Finance Minister. We also have to be very cognizant that we have a number of other fees that we charge, and we're currently doing a review of all our leases and everything else. So it would be something we would consider if there was a way to do it. We will commit to look and talk to the Finance Minister and my Cabinet colleagues to see if there's any way we can retain some of this funding.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for that. Thank you.

Thank you. Next on the list I have Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, my question to the Minister is on page 4 of his opening presentation. He points out the Bear River at Tulita. Would the Minister be able to give me some idea on how many people use that crossing every year? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. McLeod.

Madam Chair, the crossing at the Bear River is utilized by the oil and gas industry, by the communities, by traffic hauling up supplies for the year. We don't have current numbers. We are doing a number of baseline studies and we are also doing pre-engineering this year. So we don't have that information right now.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Would the Minister be able to commit that he would be able to supply me with some of this information? I just want to get a concept on it if we're putting $100,000 in engineering, and I can't even fathom what a bridge would cost unless the Minister is able to supply me with that, so I'll ask that question at the same time. The concern I have is are we spending millions of dollars for three people, four people. Is it good money being spent? Mr. Ramsay brings a good point in the sense that this is a route that could be affected by a lot of other conditions, and at this time of fiscal constraint is this an area that could be delayed, not forgotten or pushed away or thrown away, but delayed a year or two? Will he commit to the numbers, and does he have an idea on how much a bridge would cost in this particular area? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have an estimate. A lot of work has to be done in this area regarding the Bear River Bridge. Our estimate is currently at $25 million. Our current year funding is for pre-engineering and permitting. There is a real problem with the Bear River Bridge. We anticipate that with a bridge at the Bear River we would be able to add at least three weeks to our winter travel season in the Sahtu, and we would also alleviate some of the safety concerns in that area. We would project that this bridge would be used fairly heavily with the oil and gas industry and the potential pipeline and also the communities.