Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, would like to raise the issue in regard to our infrastructure. Over the years we’ve seen some incidents where we’re lucky we didn’t lose any individuals’ lives because of the collapse on the Dempster Highway, the road collapse in regard to Highway No. 7. I think it’s an important part of our infrastructure. It’s just like anything else: we have to take care of it, and we also have to ensure that we maintain, upgrade and also evaluate, assess and test.

We can’t lose sight that this government was sued at one time for $1 million because of an accident that happened around the Yukon border on the Dempster Highway, where the road collapsed. There was ice that melted under the road. The road gave way. There was an MLA from the Yukon who was driving an 18-wheeler. The wheel hit the pothole, and basically the vehicle went and flipped, and he died.

We can’t lose sight that we were sued once because of the condition of the road, through no fault of our own but because you don’t know what’s underneath by way of ice and ice melting or permafrost and also because of the aging infrastructure we have. Most of this infrastructure was built back in the ’50s going into the ’60s and on to the ’70s. I think that infrastructure is not immune to wear and tear, and we do have to continue to invest in that infrastructure.

On the side of safety, I know that in this department safety is your number one issue. I think we also have to realize that a lot of these things could be prevented by simply doing better inspections: making sure we go out on the road, check the culverts, check the road conditions. If there’s a pothole in the road, you don’t just go and fill it in

and put a flag in it. I think you have to assess how big of a problem you have by way of melting permafrost from underneath the road versus from on top.

I think this problem will become more and more apparent because of what we’re seeing with global warming. We’re seeing sloping in the mountains, and streams are now basically washing themselves out. I think we have to do a better job of making sure we continue these inspections. I’d just like to ask the Minister: because of these situations, have we increased the number of inspections on our highways to ensure the culverts are being checked regularly? Are we checking to make sure that when we see a pothole open up in the road, it is basically being worn out from underneath versus up to top? There is the bigger problem underneath, though. I’d just like to ask the Minister: exactly how often do they do that, and are we expanding the inspections of our highways?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. The Member raises a very, very, very good point in terms of safety of our highways and the safety of our infrastructures along the highway. We do say we are going to work continuously on this and improve our inspection process. I would ask the deputy to outline the detail in terms of our improvements and where we see these inspections would be very important to our management of the reconstruction of our roads.

Thank you,

Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Neudorf.

There’s another issue I’d like to raise. As long as I’ve been here in this Legislature, going on 12 years, I’ve always pushed the road from Aklavik to the Dempster Highway, and again we’re still talking about it 12 years later.

I was always told that in order for that to happen, it had to fall within the highways strategy of the Northwest Territories. Yet it seems we’re realigning roads. We’re looking at roads into the North Slave geological area. We’re talking about roads up the Mackenzie Valley. Is that strategy still a basis of any decisions this government makes by way of infrastructure, that it has to be part of the NWT strategy?

The highway strategy that Mr. Krutko is speaking about is something that the department has been following. It also has adapted the strategy from time to time and will continue to adapt as the issues come forward, and by the concerns and by the circumstances of the development in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Chair, as I stated, I’ve been pushing this issue for 12 years, and we haven’t even got to the gravel pit yet. The priorities of this Assembly are to have sustainable communities, develop our local economies, reduce the cost of living and also to connect in our communities. Most of us in our communities are not asking for a four-lane highway. All we want is a road where two pickups will pass each other in the dark. We don’t care if there are potholes or if there’s permafrost pushing up from underneath as long as we get to drive on something, because we’re used to it up there.

In order to start this, we do have to make an attempt to deal with existing road systems, either our winter roads or expanding our systems. We can’t take it lightly that with global warming in Arctic coastal communities and deltas, with the rising ocean levels, these communities will be threatened. The coastland will be threatened. We have to realize we will not be able to depend on ice roads. We will not depend on serving and providing services to communities unless we deal with that challenge.

It’s not unique to us; we’ve already seen in the last ten years where our winter season for ice roads is shrinking, and we’re basically down to five or six weeks now where before you were down to three months. We’ve got to be realistic that it’s real, that it’s here. Whatever strategy we use, we have to keep in mind that that is an element we have to

build into any of our strategies, build into any of our plans. Again, let’s at least start. You know, I don’t care if it’s a footpath or a four-by-four track. Let’s get something out there so communities can see we are trying something.

We’re not going to build the Taj Mahal. I don’t care if there’s permafrost pushing it up, making the road a little rough. We have to be realistic that most people, you know.... Give them something and they can build from that. We’ve seen that experience in communities that had initiative: the road to communities like Jean Marie and other communities, which started off as a simple community initiative by community access road projects. Now you have a pretty decent road, simply by these community initiatives.

I know we’ve tried different initiatives in the past. Again, I’d just like to point out to the department that we have to build that into whatever strategy. Again, we have to make an attempt to connect our communities to our existing infrastructure or highways. In my case, get me to the gravel pit, and we can go from there.

Mr. Chairman,

the

Member spoke very passionately in previous days and again tonight. I certainly hear what the Member is saying on behalf of the people of Aklavik. We certainly had some discussions. I also understand that Minister McLeod might come out and have some discussions in terms of the role of the department and how we can get together. As Mr.

Krutko mentioned, how can we best put

together this package with the people of Aklavik in looking at this important gravel site they’ve identified over a number of years and through various motions, raising it in various forms? We are certainly going to look into and go in there and say, “Let’s work on this.” That’ll be the link to updating our strategy in terms of connecting communities.

I come from a community similar to what Mr. Krutko’s talking about. I know the importance of some of this stuff to the people. I’m willing to go in, as I said before, and talk with the people of Aklavik and the different departments to see what the steps are in terms of putting a good plan together for building something for the people of Aklavik.

Thank you,

Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Robert McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with the Member for Mackenzie Delta; Highway 8 does need a lot of work. Something I’d like to see maybe come in the business plans is money that’s earmarked for maintenance on Highway 8 every year. How that money is used, I think, is in most cases up to the regional office. I would like a directive to come from the Minister’s office that dust control be an absolute priority for next summer

because — you’ve been on the highway in the dust — it’s just unsafe, unhealthy driving conditions. I just wanted to add my voice to that.

Also, looking at the ’09–10 reduction proposals, I noticed there was an amalgamated position of customer service coordinator and secretary into a new position of administrative clerk, and one position is to be eliminated. I’m not quite sure, and I think that’s going to be my question.

I have had a couple of inquiries from folks in Inuvik who work for Transportation. I know there are two of them who have been given letters. They were going to create one position and have these two basically scrap over the one position. I was quite concerned about that. Maybe this is not the one in Inuvik, but I know there were a couple of people in Inuvik who were given affected-employee letters. I just want to know, if that’s the case, if it’s for this year or next year, or if this is it right here — the amalgamation of the two positions.

The Member has raised the issue of safety. We certainly take that very, very important issue to our planning table. When we look at the existing infrastructure, I would make a note of it in terms of the Member’s request, in terms of looking at the Dempster Highway and his wishes that we see what we can do in terms of the dust-control issue here. We’ve increased our level of dust control. However, we can do better, and I think the Member and I and this Assembly need to have some further discussions on how we go about that.

As to the issue of the affected employees for ’09–10, my understanding is that one member does want go on an education leave in terms of her position. The other one has agreed to go through the retention policy of HR for the newly created position. Now, this is again all potential, proposed effect, so it’s not for sure for sure.

I appreciate that. That was the Inuvik positions I was referring to. And the Minister, in response to the question from Mr. Krutko before, mentioned he was from a small community, so he’s quite familiar with the driving conditions. That’s fine and that’s nice to say, and talking about strategies is another nice thing to state, but you know, the Minister on this of the House has raised the issue of highways a few times, when he was on this side of the house. Now the Minister is in a position to have some direct input into all of the stuff he was complaining about, or all of the issues he was raising when he was on this side of the House. I would remind the Minister not to forget he did raise those concerns.

You know, he’s saying we have to look at the strategy, we’ve got to look at this, we’ve got to look at that, but the bottom line — and I think it’s something we’ve been trying to get across — is it

needs to be done. We can study it to death. We can write all the strategies we want, come out with all the glossy magazines we want. The cost of producing all of these magazines could’ve been dust control for probably a couple of kilometres, if not more. You talk about dust control being applied to the Dempster, and I’ve driven on it this year. I’ve driven on it last year. It’s like 50 feet, a hundred feet, little stretches. So just to remind the Minister of that.

Just to go back to my position before I close here, Mr. Chair, the Minister is saying that one person has applied for educational leave. That basically leaves the position to the other person, who because of staff retention will be offered that position more than likely. I believe this was part of the plan, and in notifying them so soon, they were maybe hoping they would eliminate themselves from the whole reduction process by taking on something else.

If that’s the case, if the one person has decided that they’re going to school, it’s going to cost us money. It’s going to cost us money because we have to pay a severance package and that, so I don’t think there’s a huge amount of savings here. In the overall big picture of the whole budget, we see a few positions…. I think my colleague from Mackenzie Delta mentioned $30,000 for marine assistants. We’ve got little bits and pieces of money here and there. These are all front-line people, and it’s something we should really have a look at.

As far as strategies go, let’s just face the fact that this stuff needs to be done. Let’s just not study the thing to death; let’s just do it. Let’s just do it, because we say the health and safety of the people in the Northwest Territories travelling our highways is a big priority. I think we have to just quit talking about it all the time and just do it. And maybe I should quit talking about it too.

Mr. Chair, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes brings up a lot of good points in his comments to me, and certainly I take them very seriously. I look forward to having this discussion as we look at investing our dollars across the Northwest Territories in terms of transportation, and I agree with him. Let’s get it done. Let’s get it built. Let’s get building.

Thank you,

Mr. Yakeleya. We are on page 9-23. Highways, Operations Expenditure Summary: $48.290 million.

Department of Transportation, Activity

Summary, Highways, Operations Expenditure Summary: $48.290 million, approved.

Flipping to 9-26. Highways, Active Positions, information item.

Department of Transportation, Activity

Summary, Highways, Active Positions, information item (page 9-26), approved.

Page 9-27, information item, Highways, Active Positions.

Department of Transportation, Activity

Summary, Highways, Active Positions, information item (page 9-27), approved.

Page 9-29, Activity Summary, Marine, Operations Expenditure Summary. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Motion is on the floor; it’s being distributed now. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question is being called. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be supporting this motion, even though this demonstrates that large communities can help small communities. I’d like to make sure that’s on the record.

Chairman (Mr. Bromley): Thank you. Mr. Yakeleya.

Comments for the record, Mr. Chair. We are working with the affected

employee, ’09–10 reduction. We are working very closely with this employee, and we’re looking at options. However, we clearly heard the Member for Mackenzie Delta on this issue.

Thank you,

Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I think it’s…. We talk about home-made talent, people who made a career in our operations. We’re having problems recruiting people in the area of marine operations, from captains to engineers to, in some cases, deck hands. These people have made a career of this. Now what kind of a message are we sending? We say we want to train them and give them these opportunities, yet the people who have made a career of it are let go. I think it’s the wrong message. Again, I thank my colleagues for their support, and I will ask for a recorded vote.