Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to speak in favour of the motion. I think it was a good program. We used to have it before with our territorial government. I would like to see the department try to make the resources available to make this manageable to deliver small community chipsealing program. I think that it is something that our government can do, one little small thing, that will help make lives better in the communities.

Quite often there is a larger chipsealing program going by one of the communities who can utilize that and to take into account the smaller communities. For some of the more remote ones that might be more challenging, but still, all our communities should be treated the same. They should be part of the big plan as well. I would just like to say I will be supporting the motion, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr. Krutko for bringing it up in Committee of the Whole.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the issues here we are really facing is the fact that this used to be a MACA program and then MACA transfers the community gas money and the gas tax money, and then they say sorry, we don’t do this anymore. That is sort of one of the problems that we are faced with. That is why these motions keep coming up.

I have often said that there is a policy problem here, where the government used to do this but then they decide that now they are not in this business. I don’t think that there has ever been a heart-to-heart deciding on what government should be responsible for and what communities should be responsible for. I often question, is that money that they used to do things like chipsealing, was that transferred over to the communities? I would have to say I don’t think so. I think the windfall of things like the gas tax money that the department will be pointing at and say, well, now it is your business. You have money. I think that was a windfall above and beyond the existing funding pot that would have covered this in the old days. I think there’s a policy problem. I am not suggesting the Executive Council will see this motion every time this page comes up in every budget going forward, but the reality is that it is coming up in the last few budgets.

The fact is no one seems to want to be addressing the policy problem we have here. It is about who is ultimately responsible for chipsealing. Is it the community or is it the government? In some cases, I think it is probably both. It is a shared responsibility.

I think that work needs to be done. I would say, if you heed one message from this motion, at least hear that, that between the Department of Transportation and the Department of MACA, the two departments need to be sitting down with the municipalities and start working this out to figure out who should be ultimately responsible for this. Just because one department is working as a flow-through for things like gas tax money, that was meant for other things.

Mr. Chairman, I will be supporting this motion. I suggest that someone should start having that conversation on the policy of this issue, which is ultimately who is responsible. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Not having any further comments, I will ask Mr. Krutko to conclude the debate.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I would like to thank the Members that did speak in support of the motion. Again, this motion is directed to the small communities. I think that this issue has been around since the 14th Assembly. I know that

special committee, that first small communities, filed a report and this was one of the recommendations which instrumented they put in place main street chipseal program for small communities and which it only served basically in one Legislature, which was the 15th Assembly. I

think because of it only having to take place in one Assembly, other communities are saying that this issue is a health issue. It is not a question about …and also having the capacity to deliver this program in a lot of these smaller communities. The small communities do not have the capacity to basically hire engineers, start doing the evaluation in regards to the survey that has to take place, looking at the gravel needs, looking at the equipment that you have to bring in to do this thing. One project you are talking about a community’s $1.6 million. I think that for that kind of money for small communities, sure, they get a little bit of gas tax money, but you are only talking about $150,000 if not less.

With the motion, it does direct the Department of Transportation and MACA to find a way to deliver a program that will meet the unique challenges in small communities dealing with dust control. Again, I will be requesting a recorded vote on this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Are we ready for the question?

Question has been called. I will now call and the Member has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.

Thank you, all those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.

The results of the recorded vote on the motion: nine in favour, seven abstained. The motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you, committee. We are moving on to page 11-21, activity summary, highways, operations expenditure summary, $47.859 million.

Page 11-22, information item, highways, active positions.

Page 11-25, activity summary. Mr. Krutko.

Are we under marine?

I will just confirm that we are on activity summary, marine, operations expenditure summary, $7.928 million. That is page 11-25. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In this department item we talk about marines for boats and whatnot, but a lot of our communities still depend on large traffic such as NTCL to resupply a lot of our communities. I raised this question in the House before in regards to NTCL being able to tie up their barges and unload freight and that in the community of Aklavik. They do have a little marine docking system but it is mostly for small boats. I was talking with the larger vessels like NTCL,

because they do have a problem loading and unloading. It all depends on the water levels. There is no real docking facility for these vessels. I know that there have been these built up and down the valley for NTCL to load and unload a lot of their cargo. I know I have raised this in the House I believe last fall. I was told there was going to be something done, but apparently there was a miscommunication. I think they were talking about the little marine docking system for small boats and vessels. I am talking about large vessels by way of NTCL to be able to load and unload cargo in regards to the resupply of the barges. Again, I would like to ask the Minister, what does it take for a community such as Aklavik to be able to have the proper docking facilities available for large vessels in that community?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Michael McLeod.

Mr. Chairman, this is a program that is the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. They are responsible for maintaining and improving the marine facilities in communities across the Northwest Territories and also including Nunavut. I believe in 2003 there was some money provided through the DFO, a total of $450,000 to provide docks along the Aklavik shoreline to support the local boaters. There has been use of this facility by the carriers that come to the community. We have had discussions with both the DFO and NTCL. They seem to think it is adequate. There are some dollars provided each year for general maintenance. We are not aware of a permanent facility for that community. We certainly can have that discussion with Canada to see whether further marine facility requirements are needed in that community. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is needed. When basically there is a risk of moving goods and services on and off a vessel because you don’t have the proper docking facilities, I think that is something that has to be addressed. I think a lot of our communities basically don’t have year-round access and do depend on these barge resupplies that they do have to have the proper facilities. Again, I would just like to stress to the Minister if he can see if there is a possible way that we can design such a facility or even improve what is there already so that they are able to properly dock these vessels when they go into these communities.

We certainly would agree to provide some support for the community along with ourselves to have that discussion with the DFO. My understanding of the situation is that it is a difficult facility to construct. However, we also recognize that Canada has put some dollars in their federal budget that may be accessible. We will

commit to working with the community and follow it up to see what is possible and keep the Member informed.

Mr. Chairman, in to the ferry crossings, I know the Minister is aware the letters that he has received from a family in Tsiigehtchic who basically has fished there. The family had that area and fished on that side of the Mackenzie River for years, long before the highway was even there. Now they are being encroached on by the ferry landings, which has moved towards the individual’s harvesting area where they set their nets and that. I know there was a letter sent to you as Minister. I already spoke to you about this matter. Again, I think this government should do everything it can to avoid these conflicts between people’s traditional harvesting areas and where we launch our ferries. I don’t know why this government does not use the ferry approach that they have used for the last 15 years, where they used to use the same approach year after year. For some reason, the last two years they have moved the approach more towards the south side and encroaching on this individual’s campsite. Would the Minister seriously consider moving back to the original ferry launch area where it came straight down the hill right onto the ferry without having to encroach on this individual’s harvesting area? Thank you.