Moving on to page 8-10, Transportation, Activity Summary, Highways, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $59.233 million. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have seen, especially this summer and last year, that there have been some major challenges we’re facing on our highways. We had a major highway closure on Highway No. 7, and a culvert collapsed on Highway No. 8. The road condition of Highway No. 6, and also….

You know, we’re starting to close highways down, and we’re finding that it is a question of public safety. Yet we continue to spend major capital dollars on highways that have already been developed with chipseal and major overhauls. We are now in a situation where roads are actually

being closed because of the substandard construction of those highways in the past. Now it’s coming to an age where we’re actually seeing collapses. We’re seeing the roads being eroded by permafrost.

I think it’s more important, Mr. Chair, that we as government do a better job to put the money where it’s urgently needed in regard to what highways are crumbling, where we’re having to close highways because of public safety. More importantly, we have to ensure that the travelling public feels safe on these highways.

We have a major summer cottage industry by way of tourism, but when our highways are being closed and the condition of the roads is so bad that tourists are being told in other jurisdictions not to come to the Northwest Territories, that sends a bad message to the tourism sector.

I think as a government we have to do a better job. I’d like to ask the Minister exactly what we are doing to ensure that those capital investments we’re making are made where there’s emergency need and where the biggest risk is.

Thank you, Mr.

Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The other example that was missed, of course, was the major sinkhole on Highway No. 5. I’ll ask Mr. Neudorf to speak to the details.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Neudorf.

Mr. Chair, I’d like to move a motion.

Go ahead, Mr.

Krutko.

Mr. Chair, I move that $1.4 million be deleted from the activity Highways under Department of Transportation, Capital Estimates 2009–2010, on pages 8-10 and 8-11, for the Highway 5 Km 0–266 Chipseal Project.

Thank you, Mr.

Krutko. A motion is on the floor and is being distributed now. The motion has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we can see with the challenges we’re facing, we do have to do a better job of allocating capital to ensure we do focus on those urgent parts of our highways that are collapsing, which are basically public safety risks, by reinvesting in those highways that are in substandard condition. I drove Highway No. 5 this summer, and I was totally amazed at the amount of chipseal there and the condition of the road and trying to find a speed bump, of which there aren’t any.

I think it’s important to realize that we have some really unique challenges in regard to Highway No. 6 and Highway No. 7, especially when we start seeing culverts collapsing on our highway systems.

It’s a good thing no one is driving the highways when these collapses are taking place, or we would have fatalities on our highway systems.

The intent of the motion is for this government to refocus and direct its capital investment where it’s needed. I think it’s important to realize that we have highways that are in very dangerous condition and have to be remediated as more of a priority than highways that have already received chipseal, and also that capital investment will continue into the future in regard to maintenance.

I would like to note that there is still money remaining for Highway No. 5 to do the chipseal project. We didn’t completely eliminate all the capital. We still have half the capital to do the work this year, and we have capital for next year, but I think this money should be urgently put into Highway No. 6 and Highway No. 7.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the motion, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will be supporting this motion, the main reason being that there’s a message that’s got to be sent: there are other priorities out there, especially, as Mr. Krutko mentioned, Highway No. 7. That is part of our national highway system.

I’ve done many Member’s statements and questions in the House regarding the events that occurred this spring and this summer. Constituents are consistently requesting a permanent remedy and permanent solutions so that we don’t have another closure of Highway No. 7. I’ve got many written documentations from the department, as well, in response to this concern from the region.

But on the books, Mr. Chair, there’s no obvious increment to address the need for Highway No. 7. In fact, they have to take away from other pressing needs of Highway No. 7 in order to address that highway section that closed as well. For me, it’s a message to government that says: look, when you’re distributing our capital dollars and it comes to safety and maintenance of our national highway systems, you’ve got to take into serious consideration all the different regions.

As Mr. Krutko indicated, it’s a reduction in the chipsealing budget, but it doesn’t mean it’s not going to get done, Mr. Chair; it’s just not going to get all done today. That’s the same thing we are faced with in other regions, you know. All we ask is that we take care of our needs. It doesn’t have to be all done today. Do it over time, but at least as government say that you’re addressing it and you’re working towards it.

Particularly with the budget for Highway No. 7 I’ve noticed that the budget remains the same. Why would that be, especially with all the pressing needs

for that particular section, Mr. Chair, and some other smaller regions like Highway No. 6 at Fort Res too? That’s another pressing area that’s been spoken about time and time again. I’ll let theMember press that need as well.

I just want to reiterate that for me it’s a message that when government is sitting there allocating the much needed capital dollars, you’ve really got to take into consideration the seriousness, particularly in Transportation, of highways being shut down. I commend the government and Transportation for every effort they’ve made on Highway No. 7, but I’m just afraid that if it happens again next year, then what have we really done? Giving them the additional resources they need in order to have a good strategy and a good plan for maintaining and reconstructing our highways is critical to my decision on this motion, Mr. Chair. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr.

Menicoche. To the motion, Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Basically, I have the same opinion. I think there needs to be more spending on Highway No. 6, Highway No. 7 and Highway No. 8. I think that all those three highways definitely….

As the Member for Nahendeh said, Highway No. 7 was shut down last year. I think the highway was shut down this summer, actually. Highway No. 6 has not been shut down, but it’s a very, very bad highway. When it rains, you cannot exceed 70 to 80 kilometres on the highway without putting yourself in some sort of danger. So it would be good to see something happen to Highway No. 6 as soon as possible.

Thank you, Mr.

Beaulieu. To the motion, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion here speaks to allocate some needs. I certainly have driven the Dempster Highway. I went there a couple of years, and I know how dusty it is. I said to several Members that I can’t believe that in this day and age driving the highway was so dusty. It’s dangerous — very, very dangerous. I’ve also driven Highway No. 6, a very rough road also. I have had the opportunity to drive Highway No. 7. Highway No. 7 is pretty good. You know, there are a couple of spots that need improvement. I’ve certainly driven the highway to Fort Smith, a good highway. I know there is a need for the highways here.

I’m somewhat bewildered, because the honourable Members here are talking about highways, and our highway in the Sahtu shuts down on March 31

and

opens up in January.

So we will certainly look at these and other communities that do not have highways. It is

something we continue pressing for in our region and other regions that do not have roads into the communities on a seasonal basis. I know it, because I’ve been on those highways. I think that some of them, especially for the Inuvik region…. I’ve been on the Dempster, and I would say that road really needs to be looked at in terms of the quality. As the deputy minister says, also look at the integrity of the highway to improve it.

Mr. Chair, my understanding is that the roads were given to us by the federal government with certain conditions and that we have to abide by certain standards in Canada to bring them up. In this day and age the funding that we get as a territorial government is very little, even to put bridges in my region. It’s very hard to get bridges in my region, let alone put them in there and get them in on time. The people in my region talk about the goat trail into my region.

This issue is a long one in my region, but I will be supporting the Member’s motion in terms of allocating some of the dollars here. I’d like to also remind you that there are communities that do not live on the highway system, that have to live on the winter road system and fly in their food.

I know what this discussion’s about. I certainly keep pressing this government about other needs in the regions that do not have highways, that are looking forward to one day having a highway into their region. I’ll be speaking more on that as we go forward through the budget. I know it’s a challenge for this government; it’s also challenging our community on transportation issues. Some of the other areas need to be looked at more closely in terms of safety for the people in their regions.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to speak today in favour of the motion. First of all, I think it speaks to the fact that the government…. I can appreciate the fact that they do have $59 million that needs to be spent in, obviously, different areas across the territory. I do appreciate that. But the government has to listen to Members and the concerns that have been raised in this House and from the travelling public. I think we get concerned when money is being spent.

This isn’t deleting every bit of money from Highway No. 5. We’re spending money on a highway that is passable — it is a good highway, and I’ve driven that highway — when we have other highways that are impassable and a danger to public safety. We need to be focusing our efforts on ensuring that the public can safely travel on all of our highways. If the Liard Highway has to close again in the spring and people get stuck out there and the weather turns

and somebody gets killed or injured on that road, that’s a big problem.

More than anything this motion is just to send a message. I’m not sure why we’re looking at chipsealing roads or redoing roads that are good, that are passable, when we do have roads that obviously need some more attention.

Again, it’s not deleting everything. There’s more money coming down the road, I should say, in the next few years for Highway No. 5. The thing for me is the message that this sends. I do support the mover of the motion and the motion that’s before us today.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to say first off that I’m surprised, because I know my colleague also drove the Dettah Road. I’m surprised that Mr. Yakeleya didn’t mention how rough, how very rough, the Dettah Road is. It’s short; it should be easy to fix.

Fundamentally, Mr. Chair, I do want to support this motion. I’ve also driven Highway No. 5. The Highway No. 7 closure really highlighted the critical nature of that situation, especially at the peak of the tourist and resupply season. Of course, we know Highway No. 6 is also in need of attention.

I just want to speak very briefly to say that there are lots of priorities out there, but clearly here’s one I think we can all agree on. Highway No. 5 has a section that needs some attention, but not the degree of attention that we’ve proposed here. We’re attempting to correct that, and I’ll be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be supporting the motion. I just want to note for the record that I do support the completion of the work that does need to be done on the road to Fort Smith, but it’s the priority of public safety that I’m supporting. That should not, in my view, ever be a question. If people are at risk in any way, we should absolutely be making sure our dollars are spent in that regard. Public safety over public pride of the road…. It should never be a question of whose road is the prettiest or the smoothest. If people are being put at risk and we have to close roads because of safety reasons, that alone should motivate us to support this. That’s why I’ll be voting in favour of it.

Again, I want to underscore that I’ve had the pleasure, in a safe way, to drive that road to Fort Smith, and I agree that it does need completion and chipsealing. I suspect that it will go a long way to help tourism and other factors to help the region.

Again, the reason I’m voting this way, at this time, is the principle of public safety, which I have to put first in this particular case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion, the Minister of Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.