Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the critical need to connect our communities and I support the Mackenzie Highway as a possible solution, as I mentioned in my statement earlier. I’d like to pose these hard questions I suggested earlier and also basically to ensure that they are posed and to make sure that they’re fully addressed.
The first question I asked was are the reduced costs of living for communities newly connected by highway real? For example, if we look at milk costs in communities being reduced by perhaps 50 percent as a result of a highway, we need to recognize that a milk subsidy to bring community
prices in all of the NWT to those of Yellowknife is estimated at $1.3 million. We need to then contrast this to a $2 billion project with a $35 million annual maintenance fee. In other words, we can’t be robbing Peter to pay Paul. We can’t take one step forward and two steps back. We need to seek real reductions in costs. This question is meant to crystallize the economics of the project and make sure that we are making real reductions. What are real reductions? To me I see them as local economic development that actually benefits local economies through employment of people and the skills they represent locally and using products locally and so on. How will this project ensure that that develops?
Secondly, what are the potential risks and benefits to social health such as increased addictions? I mentioned that some communities, a number of communities have expressed serious concerns about the potential for increased rates of addictions and the associated challenges there. We’ll need to be planning the dollars and strategies to be sure that they’re in place and that we know how to respond to these concerns.
Another question: Will the highway reduce greenhouse gas emissions? In here, the Northwest Territories is about double the average North American per capita emissions of greenhouses gases. We’re many times that of the world average. We have an obligation to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. We know, of course, that our costs are escalating as a result of climate change, so the need is obvious there. We enjoy a very high standard of living compared to the rest of the world. Are we fully prepared to meet the challenges that this represents? The challenges of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in light of a project like this, in light of an additional 700 or 800 kilometres of highway and the likely increases in greenhouse gases that could entail without thinking and planning ahead of time to deal with them.
What sort of development will a highway enable in relation, again, to the needs of small communities that we’re talking about connecting here? About 2,600 to 3,600 people will be connected to communities by this project, to highways. What are the alternatives? The major motivation here is connecting our communities. I mentioned airships. Rail is something else that could be considered. Are there other options that will meet all of our objectives, including the real reductions in cost, improved connections of our communities and that’s useful to economic development?
Mr. Speaker, what will the real costs of the highway be? My impression of the current estimate of $1.8 billion is that it’s very preliminary and I don’t know whether it considers the challenges of climate change, the increasing challenges, and the almost
certain rapid rise in fuel costs that will be associated with an economic recovery. Maintenance, for sure, has a proven track record with a relatively modest amount of impact to the climate change we already have of being grossly underestimated on an annual basis. What will the impacts be when the real impacts of climate change start accruing within the next five years to a decade?
We must also recognize that there are different perspectives and concerns amongst communities about the Mackenzie Highway project, as evidenced last week at discussions of the Dene leadership meeting. I’m not saying here that there’s opposition to this project, but four leaders abstained in the vote for it and wanted to, I believe, wish to return to their communities to talk to their people about it and how to address the concerns that they might have. We need a responsible way of acknowledging that there are needs and concerns out there, to identifying those and to ensuring that they’re addressed and all legitimate concerns are taken care of.
A number of people have mentioned tourism and I would fully expect that the circle route, finally a true circle route, would increase the likelihood of tourism along our highways. This is potentially a positive thing. Of course, with it are the additional costs of servicing that industry in a very high-cost environment. What are economic benefits from tourism now relative to the costs? And let’s have some real analysis there.
My colleague Mr. Menicoche made reference to President Obama and what his approach would be. I think that would be an interesting exercise worthy of exploration. How would he approach a project like this to ensure that there are full benefits realized and costs minimized?
I’d like to also acknowledge that the Minister of Transportation mentioned that there’s already $2 million of work planned over the next two years to look at the socio-environmental concerns that the project poses, so I’m very happy to see that we’re already being progressive on that front.
Mr. Speaker, the biggest thing to me will be connecting our communities. But a second major contribution will be as a huge subsidy to economic development through increased and seemingly cheaper access. This requires the capacity of our government and a commitment to manage this induced development. Now, I’d also welcome a real economic analysis, given the cost of the project. It’s unlikely that this project will occur in time to be an economic stimulus in this recession as others have hoped. Particularly, of course, if our Governor Mark Carney is at all correct in when the recovery will take place. However, with work being done by
northern businesses and employees, I’m very hopeful that economic benefits would be considerable and would accrue to our northern communities.
Finally, Mr. Chair, we clearly need to connect our communities in ways that serve us better. In the old way of thinking, the Mackenzie Highway is obviously a good project. However, given our challenges today, and particularly the increasing and looming impacts of climate change, I would welcome a critical approach to evaluating this project against alternatives. We need a better understanding of what is economically and socially and environmentally sustainable here. Assuming the positive outcome of a full assessment such as this, I will be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.