We will move on to the next page which is 9-7, Department of Transportation, activity summary, marine, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $300,000.

We will move on to the next page which is going to be highways, page 9-10, Transportation, activity summary. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, in regard to the Access Road Program -- and I know I’ve raised this before -- it comes in different types of access road. You have the upgrade to the road to connect communities such as the road to Nahanni Butte. You have the expansion of what used to be the Community Access Road Program which was used to put the road into Jean Marie. There again, it’s another access road construction program. Then, also, you have the Access Road Program in regard to the Tuk access road program.

Again, I think that this issue has been around as long as I’ve been here, going back to the 13th Assembly. The whole idea of having the community access road was mostly for the communities in the Eastern Arctic so that they can access traditional areas close to their communities by way of fishing spots or, basically, recreation areas or even areas just to get out of the community.

I think that this government has to, you know, we talk about having a Highway Strategy, we have strategies in place. I’d just like to ask the Minister, I know that the Minister stated that they don’t really have a program for that, but we have programs which are similar to what we’re talking about but we use a different method of achieving it.

Again, I’ll refer to the Nahanni Butte road program to connect that community to a highway. I mean, we can use that same argument in regard to the road to Tuk, which we’ve used. I can use the same argument in regard to Aklavik, from Aklavik connecting them to the Dempster Highway. We’re able to achieve it in some communities, but we don’t really have a program like the Minister mentioned.

I’d just like to ask the Minister, knowing it is definitely from the expression of interest by Members and also this program has been around, like I mentioned, since the 13th Assembly, it’s very

important to rural and remote communities that we continue to expand the program. But the whole program, it was sort of watered down over the years and now the Community Access Program is $50,000 a year up to $450,000. I mean, because it’s so limited, I mean, you couldn’t get two loads of gravel for $50,000 in some communities. I think, if anything, it’s unproductive by the way it was achieved, but yet we’re able to achieve results using different methods.

So I’m just wondering from the Minister, do we actually have a framework or detail of a program that meets what we’re talking about here in the House in regard to achieving the same results in regard to connecting communities to highways, connecting communities to resource rich areas, mining areas or even tourism potential areas? Because it seems like we’re coming at it from all angles but we’re talking about the same thing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Neudorf.

In regard to the comments from the deputy minister, it’s clearly illustrated that if a program is overprescribed, that tells me that people very much want access to the program and, if anything, if a program is overprescribed, don’t you think that we should be putting more resources into that program, increase the amount of money we spend in the program and increase the threshold so it can really accomplish what we’re trying to do? Like I say, this issue has been here as long as I have, going back to the 13th Assembly. Again, it has

always come to this Legislature year after year after year, but yet we’re still not really able to receive the maximum benefit out of it.

Again, with the comments from the deputy minister about having a program which has been overprescribed, is there any possibility of expanding the resource injection into that program either through the Department of Finance or the Minister of Transportation and realize that this is a critical program that has been in high demand over the years and still is? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe there will be an opportunity tomorrow night with the meeting of the Rural and Remote communities to look at that as one of the possible options for recommendation. Thank you.

Just on another issue in regard to the talk about the Mackenzie Valley all-weather road. You talked about environmental engineering and alignment options. I’m just wondering on the question of various, what’s the capital injection or what we’re looking at by way of expenditures in that area for this work. Do you have any idea how much money we’re talking about to do the work that’s going to be needed to achieve that objective? Are we doing any research and development by way of trying to develop it? Because it is mentioned under various so I’m just wondering if it’s a territorial program.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister McLeod.

Mr. Chairman, the work that needs to be done in terms of PDR is roughly $8 million. We need an additional $7 million and we have identified a million dollars in this budget. If the Member is actually asking about the capital estimate to do an actual Mackenzie Valley all-weather road, we’re probably looking anywhere from $1.8 billion to $2 billion. Thank you.

Just on that, I’d just like to ask exactly what is the relationship between this department and the so-called MAC Group which is looking at a similar objective but they’re looking at...What are we doing to work with our partners to try to achieve this and also being able to leverage more federal funding or by way of some sort of a partnership arrangement to meet the final goal of eventually seeing a highway down the Mackenzie?

Mr. Chairman, the relationship we have with the MAC Group is through the Gwich’in Tribal Council and the president. They have had some discussions with myself and also with some of our staff and demonstrated an interest in doing some of the project description report work that we’d like to see done that’s within their traditional area. They have indicated to us that they are getting close to some kind of agreement that would see some investment from the federal government and they’ve asked us

to stay in touch with them or to see if we’d be interested. I believe our Premier has given them a letter agreeing that we would work with them on this stretch of road.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to start with the access road to Dettah. I’m wondering if the Minister could provide me with an update on what is being achieved this year and what the budget will cover for next year. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Neudorf.

That sounds like wonderful news. Just to confirm, we’re talking about restructuring the Dettah road to the point where we can responsibly chipseal it. Is that correct?

That’s an amazing turnaround from what I had been told previously. Somehow we’re getting a cost efficiency of about 300 percent, which is wonderful news.

The Minister committed to me some time ago in the House that he would provide me with the plan and the full costing for the entire reconstruction of the Dettah road in preparation for chipsealing. I’ve

never received that, but I understand from Mr. Neudorf that perhaps that work is still going on. I’d be happy to provide Hansard, if that’s of interest, but I’m still very interested in that and I’m encouraged to hear that perhaps we can do it with $4 million, which would be amazing but wonderful. I think the expectation is that it would be done in a way that would last longer than the two weeks it lasted the last time. So I appreciate that. Perhaps, if there are any comments there before I continue, I’d appreciate hearing them now. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Michael McLeod.

Mr. Chairman, the commitment still stands. The detail that we are looking for hasn’t been compiled to a point where we’d be able to share it with the Member. We are looking at ways and trying to be very creative. The engineering work is being done. We are looking at ways to stabilize the base. We’re looking at the cost factor and we’ve got to recognize that there was a change in leadership over this past while that kind of slowed things down. I say that because there had been some discussion as to their own priorities and we also had some discussion with a partner or our stakeholder and they don’t have a direct equity interest in the project, but it’s a mining company that wanted to explore the possibilities of working with the community and possibly assisting us in that area. So those discussions are ongoing and we’d be pleased to share that as soon as we have enough information put together as something that’s concrete and move ahead. Thank you.

I appreciate the Minister’s comments on that. Indeed there has been a change in leadership in all parties involved, I think, over the course so far and I really do appreciate this department working with the community of Dettah and other partners in getting this going. It sounds like there are some good efficiencies to be had there.

I know there’s been some research done, I think, or perhaps it’s just being done on the impact of climate change and I’ve never been able to determine the real objectives of it on Highway No. 3 so that we can improve how we do rehabilitation of that and so on. I’m just wondering if there are any results yet from that research or if I’ve got the timing of it wrong. Thank you.