Thank you,

Mr. Abernethy. Motion is on the floor and is being distributed now. Motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not going to say an awful lot, other than we feel as consistent about these positions as we do about those that are in Simpson and those that are in Tuk. It’s a medium-sized community. It’s quite busy. It’s got the college. There’s lots of air traffic. In the future there’s probably going to be a lot of activity given the Taltson expansion, as well as a bunch of the infrastructure and a bunch of the other things that happen to be going on in Fort Smith. We think this is untimely. We wonder about the notification for ’09–10. We’re not sure it’s a necessary move, so we’re moving that we keep it status quo for now and see where we go from there.

Thank you,

Mr. Abernethy. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I’ll ask for a recorded vote to make sure that gets on record.

I just want to emphasize that even though this is a Ministerial riding, Regular Members are fighting for the principle of this issue. The issue is that we don’t like this process. We’re able to look way beyond partisan issues and fight for the people of the North, no matter what airport this is.

I think the Member for Thebacha is crying. I wouldn’t assume that, though. We’re speaking so passionately about the riding of Thebacha.

I’m also voting for this, as well, because if we don’t vote for this — just like the other two issues — what we’re setting is a blueprint on our process. By acknowledging that this is sort of the format of how this is proceeding, we relatively accept it. I think, as you’ve seen through the last couple of motions, we’re not assessing this process. Even though it is a ’09–10 budget, Cabinet has, through their process, brought in these issues. I think it’s important for us to highlight them. By voting for this motion, we say we don’t agree with this. When Cabinet does go away and work on these blueprints — called the budget — they will know how we feel in advance, so maybe some true work can be done to reverse this.

Thank you,

Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, again I state very clearly that those reductions we’ve set weren’t taken very lightly, and that we had to look across our operations into each and every region in sort of a mix and a match in terms of how we’re going to meet our reduction targets and in terms of how we’re going to maintain the level of services. What is first and foremost in our minds is the safety level of our people travelling and using our roads or airports or our marine services. This is the question. I’ve gone back to the deputies in terms of challenges and in terms of how this will affect transportation services.

Number one is to maintain the integrity of our transportation facilities — roads and airports. This arrangement here is a different type of managerial arrangement, based on the number of flights into each of our community airports. We had to look deep down and hard in terms of how we make these decisions so they would have minimal impact on employees in the communities. The managerial type of arrangement we made with this specific community, this specific airport, is that we would look at — similar to the other airports — how we move things. Then we would come back to the community and have some further discussion. This discussion, again, is proposed for ’09–10, and we would have further discussions and certainly take in the comments of the Regular Members. I know, for us, it’s been a long, drawn-out process. It’s very tiring. But we also take these reductions very seriously.

Again, we would respect the wishes of the Assembly here. We have looked at our target reduction, and we feel that would have the least impact on the services at our airport.

Thank you,

Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. Question has been called. I will call upon Mr. Abernethy to conclude the debate on this motion.

I’ll be really fast. We understand how difficult it is to make any decision that involves the laying-off of staff. When it comes to communities like Fort Smith and Inuvik, they’re taking a huge hit. Tons and tons of positions are being eliminated out of those regions and out of those communities.

Related to this motion, we’d seriously think it would be a good idea, in the future, when you’re hitting on a community pretty hard, to actually have the departments talk and think about the impacts you’re actually inflicting on a community. Twenty or 30 positions is an awful lot for a small community to take.

We encourage you to look at this again, make sure you’re making the right choice and, we hope, put some of these positions back.

Thank you,

Mr. Abernethy. Question has been called, and I believe a request is on the floor for a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.

The results of the recorded vote on the motion: ten in favour, zero opposed, seven abstentions.

Motion carried.

Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we report progress.

Thank you,

Mrs. Groenewegen. A motion is on the floor to report progress. The motion is in order and is non-debatable.

Motion defeated.

We’re on page 9-17. Activity Summary, Airports, Operations Expenditure Summary: $27.887 million. Mr. Krutko.

I’d like to move a motion to report progress.

We have to conduct a piece of business, I believe, before we can…. Very good. The motion on the floor to report progress is non-debatable and in order.

Motion defeated.

Okay, folks, let’s have some order and get some work done here. We are on page 9-17, Airports, Operations Expenditure Summary: $27.887 million.Mr. Krutko.

I just have a question to the department. I notice that under your strategic infrastructure investment funds you do have airport runway expansions. I met with the Minister on this

issue, but I think you should be aware of it as a department. I don’t know if you realize it, but under the Gwich’in land-claim agreement, you had access to the Frog Creek gravel source for 20 years. Your 20 years is up in 2012. If you’re going to do any planning, you’d better make sure you’ve planned around that. You will be charged access and fees and whatnot after 2012.

I’d just like to ask the Minister: has that been taken into consideration? Knowing you have the airport expansion for the airport in McPherson for 2010–11 but knowing that’s cutting it pretty close, is there a chance of moving that up?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Krutko. He and I did have this discussion. It has raised some concerns, and I informed my officials about our discussion. My understanding regarding this Frog Creek issue in terms of the gravel source is that we are close to working out an arrangement with the Gwich’in government in terms of using the gravel source. We are close to completing this agreement and hope that we would see a resolution to this issue within the next few years and have enough gravel for the expansion of the Fort McPherson airport.

I’d just like to ask the Minister in regard to airports: are there any scheduled plans for doing an extension at the Aklavic airport in the next number of years, which would be helping those other communities that basically depend on airports to also have an opportunity to see an expansion?