Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in these difficult economic times, many people are concerned about what we can do about the cost of living and others are concerned about economic development to benefit our people. These concerns must be addressed within the context of the accelerating impacts of climate change and fuel costs. As the 16th Assembly, we
are committed to sustainable communities which are those that choose economic development that will ensure benefits to everyone in the community in ways that reduce our environmental impacts and strengthen our health and social structures.
The Mackenzie Highway project, therefore, must address the hard questions that these conditions impose or we will not be better off. Are the reduced costs of living for communities newly connected by highway real? Currently, GNWT subsidizes cost of living in these communities with about 40 or 50 million dollars per year. If costs are reduced by 50 percent with the highway, our new costs will be $20 million plus $35 million annual maintenance. Families will save but ultimately the people of the NWT and Canada will pay additional costs through taxes. If induced development is to provide for these costs, how will we commit to managing it to again yield real benefits?
What are the potential risks and benefits to social health such as increased addictions? Dollars and
strategies will need to be in place to enable communities to respond effectively to these concerns.
Will the highway reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Currently, flying everything in and use of ice roads causes high emissions, more than transport by automobile. However, increased vehicle traffic, road construction and an induced rate of industrial development associated with highway means attention will need to be addressed to this issue. Climate change is already causing havoc to our highways. This means higher road construction costs and higher maintenance.
What sort of development will a highway enable? The majority of the economically, socially and environmentally sustainable developments that benefit our communities are by definition modest in size and locally empowered. How will we ensure that a highway results in a wider distribution of economic benefits to all our people rather than a select few?
Finally, what are the alternatives? Recent studies indicate airship technology has come a long way and is now a viable economic alternative to expensive northern highways. With them they bring year-round transport, reduce the product storage costs, safety and environmental benefits, a positive contribution to the sovereignty issue and better emergency services.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted