We’ve had several discussions with the Member and the communities involved regarding the requested extension to the runway lengths to 4,500 feet. The situation is, as the 2010 ruling comes forward and gets closer, people in the southern jurisdictions are putting some of their aircraft out for sale as they would rather buy more efficient aircraft to operate. The Beech 1900 and other ones are becoming fairly cheap and that’s becoming very attractive through some of the communities and corporations in the North. They are wanting to purchase these aircraft and require us to upgrade the runway lengths. We are quite concerned about going any further than what we are extending them to already. This would require us not only to put the airport in a new category, it would require us to spend additional dollars to widen the current runway as well as extend it. We do not have the resources at this

point to go to the next category for operations and maintenance. We do not have the capital dollars identified. So it’s not something we’re planning to do in the next while. We wanted to have further discussions with some of the communities to see what’s all involved to be able to measure what the capital costs would be and operations and maintenance. That offer wasn’t taken by the community that the Member represents. We’re still waiting for some response.

Certainly the Minister is correct in terms of some discussions that have happened with the communities and North-Wright regarding solutions on this issue. We feel in the Sahtu that we’re going to pay if we don’t have those runways extended to the length that we would see benefitting the communities.

The Minister has referred to additional costs and that if we go to a different length of runway it means a higher category. The people in the Sahtu already pay high prices for their airline tickets. They use the small aircraft in those dangerous mountains, with respect to the weather, the terrain that we have to fly in. We are being penalized because of this runway that is not being extended in the Sahtu region. I point again to the incident that happened in Fort Good Hope, because of too small an aircraft and the type of aircraft that was used.

I’m here and I could be corrected on this one here, if we had a longer runway with more suitable aircraft that could fly high over the mountains, we wouldn’t be in the situation we had in Fort Good Hope.

Again, if we do nothing by 2010, we are going to be restricted with this type of aircraft. We’re paying a high cost for travel in the Sahtu. There’s a limited amount of freight that’s going to come in there and we’re going to continue using smaller aircraft. I know that it costs additional dollars to extend this runway with the maintenance, but I think we are being penalized in the Sahtu region.

I may need to be corrected on this also, but I hear that outside aircraft coming into the Sahtu are not going to be penalized for landing on our runways. It is only the people in the Sahtu who are going to be penalized. That’s what I’m hearing. If the Minister needs to correct me, so be it, but that’s what I’m hearing right now. We desperately need to look at ways to extend our runways up to at least 5,000 in Fort Good Hope and Deline right now because of the possible amount of oil and gas activity that could be happening in the Sahtu region. It’s busy up there. It’s been quiet this year because of the other factors taking place with oil and gas exploration. I want to make that known to the Minister. I appreciate his willingness to sit with us and continue talking.

First of all, I have to correct the Member. The rules do not apply to only one specific jurisdiction. The rules for 2010 application will come forward and apply to all jurisdictions for all aircraft that are uncertified. That is the issue here, is there are two planes currently flying in the North that cannot demonstrate they can land on the runways we currently provide. Until they become certified, until they can find that information or justify it through testing, that won’t be allowed. We have taken the liberty and opportunity to write to companies that may be able to support us in providing that information. If that’s the case, if the information comes forward, then these aircraft can be certified. The aircraft carriers have not been willing to get some of this testing done for whatever reason.

All jurisdictions are involved and that’s the reason we are seeing a lot of these other planes coming on the market, such as the Beech 1900 that the communities want to buy. There are other aircraft that can meet the need. There is no intention of disadvantaging or targeting anyone. This is an issue we will be discussing and workshopping at our conference with the NATA in April. All the carriers will have an opportunity to have input and further discussion. For us to extend all the runways across the NWT would be a huge, expensive undertaking that we are not resourced to accommodate at this point.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Next on my list, Mr. Krutko.

I just have a question regarding the resurfacing of the airports. Are there plans not only for extension but also for resurfacing the airports and using different types of products for the resurfacing of airports? How often do you apply the different chemicals that you use to do the resurfacing? There are a lot more turbo prop aircraft flying into those airports and with the gravel airports most people do apply different products. I’d like to know how often or if the airport extensions will include the resurfacing of those airports or an appliance of some sort of chemical to protect the surface on those airports.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The provision for dust suppressants and other measures on the airports was approved in our capital budget in the fall and I can certainly provide that information again to the Members. I guess it’s important to clarify that chipseal can’t work in the communities. We don’t feel it’s a safe way to apply a coating to the runways. It either has to be pavement or EK-35. We’ve used it in some communities and we have a schedule to apply it to

other communities to the cost of about $400,000 a year. We have a number of communities scheduled for this year. We have already done some across the Territories and it’s going to be a long-term investment for communities.

If we could get that information from the Minister it would be great. But the reason I’m asking is that in the case of Aklavik, they apply that EK-35 and it does work. If anything, if you’re not going to extend the airport, I think that at least having an airport that’s in pretty good shape, especially with these chemicals. I think it’s important that you do continue to reapply the chemical if you’re not going to extend those airports, because it does make a difference for the aircraft. You even notice it flying into these communities. The ones that have the chemical you can notice the difference to the condition of the airport. I’d like to also ask if you apply this to the airport in Fort McPherson. I know you do in Aklavik, but I’m not sure about Fort McPherson.

The EK-35 application has been working well in a number of communities. It has to be reapplied on a fairly regular basis. We are in the process of planning to do our third application at the Aklavik Airport. As to Fort McPherson, I don’t see it scheduled for the EK-35 along with the extension. I’d have to see if we could find that information and provide it to the Member, but I don’t have it listed as something that’s scheduled to be part of the extension.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I have nobody else on my list. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just wondering, we had a lot of predictions of melting permafrost causing caving and heaving and this sort of thing on airstrips and runways. I’m wondering if we’ve had any cases of that in the Northwest Territories in the last few years and, if so, are there any cases under management right now.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Chairman, we did have a certain amount of slumping in one community. The town of Hay River’s airport had some problems. I think that was two years ago and that’s been rectified. That’s the only one that’s reported the concern regarding what could be potential climate change issues. Thank you.

Are there studies that indicate the ones that are likely to have problems or have we been inventorying where the problems are likely to

occur? Is there anything we can do beforehand to try and reduce the cost of that? Thank you.

We don’t have any airports right now that are reporting it. Now, as the Building Canada funding comes forward, there is a portion earmarked for research. As we indicated to the Member, this is an area that we need to look at along with some of the road assessments that need to be done. We are targeting some of the dollars that are coming forward from that pot of money to be used for the information that the Member is asking about.

Thanks for that information. Do we know how much of the…I think it is $250,000 slated for this year might be going to the airport assessment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I have nobody else on my list. We are on page 11-17, activity summary, airports, operations expenditure summary, $29 million.

We are on page 11-18, activity summary, airports, grants and contributions, contributions, $30,000.

We are on page 11-19 which is an information item. Airports, active positions. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the department if they can get the information based on the affirmative action numbers that are on this chart, P1s, P2s, P3s, and also if they can identify anybody with a disability or, basically, female management.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister McLeod.