Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee would like to continue with Tabled 66-16(5), NWT Capital Estimates 2011-2012, and proceed with the Department of Transportation. Thank you.

Is committee agreed?

Alright. With that, we’ll take a short break and come back with Tabled Document 66-16(5) and Transportation. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

I’d like to call Committee of the Whole back to order. Does committee agree that we’ll be considering Tabled Document 66-16(5), NWT Capital Estimates 2011-2012? Committee’s preference was to start with the Department of Transportation, so that’s what we’ll do, if committee agrees. Does committee agree?

Okay. So we’ll start with the infrastructure investment summary, which we will defer until after the details. So we’ll start with airports, which is pages 9-3 to 9-5. First of all, I understand there are no opening remarks, so will the Minister bring witnesses in with him?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Is committee agreed?

Thank you, committee. If I could ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses into the House. While we’re waiting for that, airports, committee, is pages 9-3 to 9-5 with the financial summary for airports on page 9-4.

I’m assuming that our witnesses are here. I will call upon the Minister to introduce his witness. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I have with me Mr. Russell Neudorf, the deputy minister of Transportation.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Welcome, Mr. Neudorf. Committee, page 9-4, airports, Transportation, activity summary, airports, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $11.605 million. Questions? Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is directed to the Minister regarding the federal regulations that now force us to extend our airports throughout the Northwest Territories to meet the federal standards. I’d like to ask the Minister how many more communities we are going to include in here for the extension. I know the community of Aklavik has raised an issue. Also with the different type of aircraft that are being used today is an issue, especially in the Sahtu. I’d like to ask the Minister what we are doing to include more communities in this program to meet the national standard. How many communities are left out there to conclude this work and mitigate that problem?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We initiated a planning study several years ago that reviewed all our airports across the North which has resulted in some recommendations to extend a number of airports to 4,000 feet. The planning study was based on the type of aircraft that utilize the facilities in the communities. We have addressed all the communities that were identified in the planning study.

One of the other aspects that we’re challenged with is the area of climate change and the effect it’s having on permafrost and the protection of the surface of the different airports. Is there any research or work going on to look at the possibility of using different means or methods of surfacing our airports so that we can mitigate some of the effects of climate change? Especially on permafrost.

The Member is quite correct; there have been some serious challenges starting to show up in a number of our transportation infrastructure across the North on our highways and including on our airports where we see some slumping. We are looking at different ways of construction to mitigate these challenges, however, it’s an issue that is going to be ongoing. We have tried different ways to hardtop the airports. We have tried chipseal in some cases. We’ve tried EK35. There is some new technology that we have had discussions with proponents on but have not done any testing on at this point on our airports. That’s an issue that we’ll have to continue to look at ways to address.

I’d just like to ask the Minister if he has any research dollars available to look at different types of research when it comes to mitigating the effects of climate change, especially dealing with public infrastructure such as airports or highways. I’d like to ask the Minister if there are any funds we can access to deal with some of the effects we’re seeing at the airports, especially in dealing with the area of permafrost or continuous permafrost.

We are looking at construction methods on our roads. We are looking at different systems that may be a way to alleviate some of the challenges we’re facing as a result of climate change and the slumping that we’re starting to see in our infrastructure. We do, along with looking at different technology, have some research dollars that have been made available through the Building Canada Program. It’s a seven-year program. There’s $1.85 million and we’ve spent about half of that. So there’s still about 50 percent of those dollars remaining to do other research.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Any other questions, committee, on page 9-4? Agreed?

Moving on. The next section is the marine section, which occurs from page 9-6 through 9-8. The financial summary is on page 9-7. Within the Department of Transportation, the activity summary for marine infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $100,000. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I noted under 9-6 the department is talking about ferry program, ferry services. There is an issue that has come about with the ferry services on the Peel River and the Mackenzie. It’s in regard to the amount of granular material that’s being used for the approaches and how much is being wasted by being put into the rivers; also the effect that it can have on spawning areas or fish, and the build-up of sandbars downstream. I’d like to ask the Minister if the department has looked at alternative means or methods of avoiding using so much silt material in the rivers and, wherever possible, looking at alternative ways of dealing with the ramps for the ferries to land and for the vehicles to get off the approaches. I’d like to ask the Minister where we’re going with that. There are concerns from my constituents, especially with the amount of material that is being dumped into the river year after year where these ferries have been operating for over 30 years. After 30 years that is a lot of gravel that has been placed in those rivers.

Mr. Chairman, this has been an issue that’s been raised on a number of occasions by the MLA for that constituency. It has also been raised by the chiefs and a number of the leadership, concerns over the amount of gravel that’s being used. We’ve agreed that we need to deal with this issue. It’s part of the process that we’ve embarked on to renew our licence. In 2002 the study was done and it showed that there’s really no issue on the amount of gravel that was being used, however, we want to be able to give comfort to the people who live in that area. We’re looking at alternate methods; maybe different landing sites. We also have investigated the possibility of using a mobile cement pad. It’s already demonstrated that it’s going to be a very costly undertaking, but we want to take a look at that. We also have been reclaiming a lot of that gravel, but maybe that’s an area that we need to put more emphasis on as to reclamation of some of the gravel that’s being put on the shore and in the water. That’s something that we have to resolve as we move forward to renew our water licence.

I have heard the concerns of the communities, but there have also been concerns regarding the licence the government has obtained in the past which clearly specifically stipulates the

amount of gravel that was going to be used, which I believe was 500 cubic metres. In most cases you’re exceeding 1,500 cubic metres for the approaches. Also in the licence it talked about the gravel being screened. The gravel is not being screened.

I’d like to know that we have environmental regulations or standards that we’re supposed to meet as government, but, more importantly, mitigate efforts. I know that we do have licences, but are we living up to the obligations in those licences by way of the amount of gravel that can be put into a river system and, more importantly, that the material be screened? I’d just like to know what we are doing to ensure that we are living up to the water licences that we are receiving from the land and water boards.

We feel that we’re meeting the obligations under the water licensing through the amount of gravel that we’re using and the amount that we reclaim. Therefore, we’re meeting the stipulations under the water licence. That’s an issue again that is going to be discussed as we move forward in our application for a new water licence.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Does committee have any further questions on page 9-7, marine? Then on protocol, committee, I’m going to go back. Apparently I need to re-read the numbers before we agree. So I’m going to go back to airports, page 9-4, Department of Transportation, activity summary, airports, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $11.605 million. Is committee agreed?

And again, page 9-7 for marine, Department of Transportation, activity summary, marine, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $100,000. Is committee agreed?

Thank you, committee. We’ll now turn to highways, which goes from page 9-9 through 9-12. Here we have under Department of Transportation, activity summary, highways, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $50.3 million. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the Minister a question on the highway chipseal overlay program that includes Highway No. 6. I’m wondering if this budget is what is going to be used to complete the chipsealing on a road that was reconstructed this year: kilometres 68 to 90 on Highway No. 6.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Chairman, the money included in this budget is not for new chipseal. This is for replacement. That’s what is identified in this capital plan.

Could the Minister tell me if this highway chipseal overlay program will be used for kilometre 24 to 34 on Highway No. 6?

That’s a very specific question and I think it’s chipseal all the way to 28. I should point out that there is some consideration at this point for some internal reallocation that we provided notice to the Members that fall outside of the capital plan as it is money already approved but reallocated.

I’m asking a question, because I’m noticing that chipseal, that’s about the same age as the chipseal on Highway No. 6 from kilometre 1 to 28 that is being replaced, and the other highway, well, the adjoining highway, I’m wondering if there is a plan to do that.

The reason I indicated kilometre 34 was because it was put down and ripped up, from what I understand, a few years back. Then I’ve seen other documentation that indicates that if there would be...in the reconstruction it would be from 34. If the Minister is having difficulty with the question because it’s too specific, I guess my… Not too stupid, no; too specific. I wanted to just ask the question if he knew if they we’re going to do a chipseal overlay from where the chipseal actually exists now on Highway No. 6.

Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There’s never a question that’s too stupid. Mr. Chairman, the Member is asking a question that’s outside of the capital plan that’s in front of us and we don’t have the specific detail, but the answer to his question is no, we’re not planning to replace the area that he is talking about.

The next question goes to Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Chipsealing Highway No. 7, I’ll get to that later, but firstly I’m glad to see, of course, more expenditure on Highway No. 1, and especially the work that was done this year. Our constituents were very pleased with the first, I think it was 35 kilometres of chipseal from the Providence junction towards Fort Simpson. Perhaps if the Minister can elaborate on further work that’s going to happen within that section and if there are any other sections that will be completed this year towards Fort Simpson, and up to and including if there’s an opportunity for the Village of Fort Simpson to cost save if there’s going to be some chipsealing done around Fort Simpson as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We plan to continue the chipseal work that was undertaken this year. We had anticipated we would do 70 kilometres from the junction heading towards Simpson. We weren’t able to do that, so we will have to carry that over and continue that next year.

As part of this capital plan, our intention is to start from -- time providing and weather cooperating, of course -- complete the work that we identified for this year and start next year from Checkpoint and head in the other direction up to kilometre 375.

I’m glad the Minister laid out that plan and it’s something that we certainly look forward to, but the chipsealed section from Checkpoint towards Fort Simpson is slated for some work. If the Minister can comment on that, because there are several sections that do need to be replaced. As well as from the ferry crossing at the Liard crossing toward Fort Simpson there are sections of chipseal that need that remediation work as well. Is that some of the priority of the Department of Transportation as well? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, we will be replacing some sections of the chipseal that is damaged and is causing some issues with safety from Checkpoint on to Simpson.

If the Minister can keep my office advised so that we can provide an opportunity for the Village of Fort Simpson to do some cost savings when that equipment is in the area.

Of course, the second one I raised in the House last week was the condition and work plan for Highway No. 7. I’m still curious about that. The Minister did indicate that the waiting on the engineering study was going to be completed this fall. I assume that it’s completed by now. When will they assess the engineering work that was completed? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the engineering study is not completed as of yet and we hope that will be done fairly quickly. We had a budget of $5 million to do reconstruction and, of course, as the Member is aware, a lot of the money that we spent for this year has gone to repairs of areas that are really challenging us. There are some areas where we’ve had the road fail on us and ditches that are needing replacement that we did not anticipate. So about three-quarters of the $5 million has been spent. We have in the budget $4 million for next year.

Just in terms of Fort Liard, or actually kilometre, I think, 0 to 38, which is the Fort Liard access, how much of that $4 million will be

dedicated to that section there, Mr. Chair? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, that is still to be determined at this point.

When the Minister and I were in Fort Liard a couple of weeks ago, residents, of course, expressed the interest of getting that section chipsealed or a portion thereof. Is that something that the Department of Transportation can look at? Because some sections are... Actually, they have been completed for a couple of years now. I don’t know if 0 to 38...38 kilometres there would be doable. If not, Mr. Chair, can the Minister at least commit to some kind of a work plan that within the perhaps three years that’s something that the department is looking at seriously, and up to and including on the capital plan, Mr. Chair? Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. I’m not sure the Minister can commit to the next Assembly but… Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That will be a little difficult to tie our government for a multi-year investment plan. However, we certainly can commit to developing our engineering study and using that as a guide for future investment. It will certainly identify the areas that need to be placed as priority and attention that needs to be put on those areas. We will develop a multi-year work plan for that piece of highway, or the whole section of this highway; however, the funding will remain in the hands of each government as we progress. Thank you.

I don’t see why we can’t commit to the future there. If once the engineering report is complete, I would certainly like to see a developed work plan and at least we have that for the future, something to work with, because I believe that that baseline work will certainly confirm and at least solidify a departmental plan when it comes to expenditures and, of course, the degradation of the road, it would be nice to have that engineering study to do it, because the residents already know it there, Mr. Chair. Yes, I would certainly like to see a well-developed work plan and, of course, I would like to see it in the capital plan there, Mr. Chair; however, we’ll take the small steps and get that engineering work done and if the Minister and the department can at least come up with a work plan, I’m glad he’ll review it with me and I would like to share that with the community as well. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, as we indicated earlier, we haven’t firmed up our work plan for the long term as we’re still waiting for some information and some testing that’s being done, and to get the engineering reports back. It would be fairly easy, I guess, to look at portions of the road that are reconstructed to chipseal, but I am a little

hesitant as there is so much need for this Highway No. 7 that if we did take some money out of the construction costs to chipseal, then, of course, that would leave us with a little less to do reconstruction. So that’s going to be determined. The reality, of course, is Highway No. 7 has to be reconstructed right from start, from zero all the way to Checkpoint and that’s going to be a long-term investment and we need a plan to do so. Thank you.

I’d like to thank the Minister for those answers. Just to reiterate one more time, that at anytime that there’s a federal meeting, that he just continue to raise the issue that we want tourists and Canadians to view our spectacular North at Highway No. 7 at Fort Liard. It is one of the entry points and tourism numbers by road that Parks Canada just released that they’ve increased fly-ins into Nahanni National Park and I’m glad for that, but drive-ins, the numbers are just that much poorer, Mr. Chair, and it’s because of the condition of the road. I know that the amount of investment that the Minister is talking about is significant and certainly getting the federal government as a partner as we work towards developing our North would certainly go a long way, Mr. Chair. So as part of our federal engagement strategy, I really think perhaps we should maybe consider Highway No. 7 as one of the hot item topics, as it were, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

We’ll certainly keep that in mind. Every Member has raised issues that are hot item topics, and looking at our five-year needs, if we were to try and accommodate all of the projects and all of the needs that are out in the Territories -- there are many -- we’d probably need about a $2 billion budget for five years. But, Mr. Chairman, we’re anticipating we’re going to continue to talk to the federal government to reinforce the need that we have in our infrastructure and encourage them to invest in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

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

Maybe just a suggestion. I see $2 million on Highway No. 5. Maybe we could do Highway No. 7 to speed up the process.

My question is in regard to the Tuk resource gravel access road. I know I’ve been asking for the same type of arrangement for the Aklavik access road to their gravel source. There was a motion passed in this House supporting both projects, but again it seems like we are not as far ahead in regard to the Aklavik project as we were in regard to the Tuk project. So can the Minister give me an update on exactly where we are with the Aklavik gravel access road project and do we see any capital investment in that in the future, hopefully somewhere in the range that we gave to the Tuk project? I believe, in the budget, I see $1.4 million. So maybe you could

elaborate on what that $1.4 million, what the total costs for the Tuk resource road are to date.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. A couple of questions there. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Tuk access road funding came through the Building Canada Program and it’s allowed them to build a road to source 177. We’re still waiting to see from the federal government where investment is going to be in infrastructure for the next couple of years. We anticipate we’re going to have that discussion as things progress. We still also are not aware of what the federal government is planning to do with the stimulus program.

We do, however, have some commitment for investment on this access road to the gravel source with the community of Aklavik, and we’ve done a lot of work with the steering committee that was formed, and we did some baseline assessments and needed to do further research to bring it to the level of the project description report. We’ve made a submission to the federal government and are anticipating we’ll hear back sometime before Christmas. However, we are committed to following through with that and we want to sit down with the Aklavik steering committee and start that work and get that ongoing so we’ll be in a position to tap into any new federal programs that may come forward. We’ve also applied for and received approval to cost share a bridge along that route, that alignment, and we anticipate that’s going to move forward this winter and get the material on site and start construction over the next while. Thank you.

My other question was: I’ve looked in the budget and there’s $1.4 million for the Tuk resource gravel access road. Can you elaborate on what the $1.4 million is for?

I apologize; I forgot the question. That amount is identified for investment in some finishing gravel and also royalties for the gravel. Thanks.

Maybe the Minister could elaborate on the royalty side. Are the royalties for access for gravel, or what’s the royalties for? What are you paying royalties for?

Mr. Chairman, for clarification, money identified here, that would go to royalties and it’s for our own material that was used.

Similar question as my colleague from Nahendeh in regard to some sort of dust control. In the past we have had a program for main street dust control. Back in the 14th Assembly there

were a few communities that had been identified and I know I have raised this issue with the Minister. Also, what we’re finding is that the communities that did receive the dust control in regard to main street chipseal, but the life of that

chipseal is pretty well up now and a lot of them originate off the highway system in regard to Fort Liard using that, for instance, Fort McPherson where they’ve done main street chipseal. So I know I have approached the Minister and I’ve raised questions in the House to the Minister about the possibility of expanding that program to work in conjunction with the Department of Transportation, the community, and the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs to see about partnering on some arrangement to deal with that dust control in the different communities. So can the Minister tell me, is there any possibility of working with your department? I know you’ve made commitments in the House to look at this, but I’d just like to know what arrangements can be made in regard to that possibility.

Also, I know we did receive some dollars from Building Canada for research money to look at the whole area of permafrost. So is that something that we can possibly look at? I believe in the budget there’s various highway chipseal overlay programs. Is there a possibility of seeing some work done, or even to work in partnership with the communities, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs?

Mr. Chairman, the Main Street Dust Control Program was a program initiated by MACA. It was funded by MACA and the Department of Transportation provided the support and technical information and we continue to do a lot of the same kind of work that we did with that program, even though that program has sunsetted. We are in communication with several communities. We are talking to the community of Fort McPherson in the Member’s riding. We are also providing support to the community of Fort Providence, which is chipsealing all their roads next year. We’re also going to be communicating with the communities that are going to be in close proximity to some of the highway work that’s going to be done. Fort Resolution, for example, is in a good position to look at economies of scale as a chipper and all the equipment will be in that area. They wanted to venture into some investment in that area. Fort Simpson is probably another community that will have chipseal and equipment working in the area and probably could take advantage of it.

So we’ll communicate that information and we do still provide technical support to communities. We do respond to questions and inquiries that come from communities, to provide them with any kind of information that they have in this area of chipsealing and road prep. Thank you.

Again, like my colleague from Nahendeh, I had an opportunity to drive down here from the Mackenzie Delta along the Dempster. I mean, no fault to the road, it was pretty wet and

pretty slippery. Again, I think it’s got to be expected from the roads that do have a clay base and we are seeing a real effect to those roads. I think we have to find either a new method of dealing with protecting the surface of our highways and reducing the overall operational costs and resurfacing costs to our highways year after year after year. I think we do have to look at the possibility of looking at some sort of surface appliance, whether it’s chipseal or good old Easy Street. I think that we have to make that investment.

I had the opportunity to drive on the roads through the Yukon. Most of their roads are chipsealed to most of their communities. With regard to travelling on Highway No. 97, I believe, in northern B.C. from the Alaska Highway to the NWT junction just before Fort Liard, they’ve resurfaced the whole highway. I think that if we can look at the long-term viability of resurfacing all our highways with some sort of means of protecting the hardtop.

Do we have a long-term capital investment plan looking at some sort of means of resurfacing our highways throughout the Northwest Territories and protecting our capital investment by way of infrastructure?

Our focus has been to invest in the reconstruction of our highways prior to providing chipseal. On Highway No. 8, for example, we intend to look at some type of surface protection as we move forward. However, our plan is to do the reconstruction up to Tsiigehtchic and then start to do either chipseal or some type of hardtop on our roads on Highway No. 8.

Other jurisdictions, of course, are using revenues from industry, oil and gas to upgrade their sections of road and we’re not in a position to do the same thing.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Committee, we’re on highways section, page 9-10, Department of Transportation, activity summary, highways, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $50.3 million. Agreed? Mr. Krutko.

I just have another question to the Minister in the area of bridges. I know there was that federal program, I think it was $50 million-plus, and there was, I believe, a list of items that were put forward to the federal government. I think that’s another area we have to look at the possibility of putting bridges in place to replace the ferry operations. I know there are two bridges that were being discussed: the Bear River Bridge and the Peel River Bridge. I’d just like to ask the Minister what the status is of the request for the federal government P3 initiative of $50 million-plus projects. I know those were some of the projects that were put forward for consideration. I’d like to ask the Minister where we are on the Peel River Bridge.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m assuming the Member is referring to our application to P3 Canada to do some research in the area of financial investigation in ways we can be creative in trying to get the projects in the Northwest Territories to meet the criteria under the P3 Canada program. There are a number of projects we have looked at and right now don’t feel they meet the criteria but have good potential. We’ve asked for some dollars to investigate the process, with the aid of some financial experts. We have not received any word as to the status of that application and hopefully we’ll have some positive news in the next little while.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Once again, committee, we’re on page 9-10, Department of Transportation, activity summary, highways, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $50.3 million. Agreed?

Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions on the infrastructure on highways. Can we go back to that page?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Sorry; I thought you were summoning a Page there. Committee, let’s retract that last action and we’ll move back to page 9-10 on highways and go to Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, colleagues. I want to ask a question to the Minister in terms of the project description report funding and the push to construct the Mackenzie Valley Highway sometime within this century here. Can the Minister indicate the status of the project description funding and hopefully where that would carry us through to iron on the ground in terms of actual construction of the highway with reference to his exchange with Mr. Krutko on the piece of infrastructure that’s going to be needed on the Bear River Bridge to go ahead? Are those dollars identified in here? What are the results of finishing off this project description funding and the work that needs to move to the next level? Certainly that requires the federal government’s contribution. Does the all-weather road follow within a type of P3 concept? Are we moving in that direction or is that something that can be discussed at the next Assembly?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Chairman, we have signed agreements with a number of the aboriginal governments allowing the Mackenzie

Valley route up to Tuktoyaktuk. We have agreements for the Inuvik-Tuktoyaktuk portion. That research has been completed and the work in the Gwich’in Settlement Area is progressing. We have an agreement with the Gwich’in Tribal Council and we also have an agreement with the Tulita Land Corporation. We have yet to sign an agreement with the Fort Good Hope people and the Dehcho. A lot of discussion has taken place and I think we should have agreements in both those communities or both those areas fairly soon. Things are progressing well.

The project description discussions, I would say, with the G’asho Got’ine, the Fort Good Hope and Colville Lake district, I believe that later on when I meet with the leaders tonight, I know they had some discussion around this area. They’re very confident that this government here is going to come to a conclusion and sign off a deal. They’re just wondering about... I guess they have to come to agreement on the numbers that they’re using right now. I feel that could be within a matter of days that they will come to an agreement.

My point is that the Minister has given a lot of support to the communities that do need roads in their regions and can this type of project description report evolve into projects that will make sense for people in my region, such as putting roads in the Sahtu? Some discussion about even building a road from Tulita to Norman Wells? Those types of issues. Is that where the project description can lead to, or does the Minister have other ideas as to once we finish all the project description reports, then we go to the next stage? I just wanted to flesh out some of the thoughts of the Minister on the department’s direction as to what’s possible out there in terms of this Assembly and moving on to the next Assembly on this very important issue.

The work that we’re doing right now is trying to capture all the needs in terms of project description reports for the whole of the Mackenzie Valley Highway all the way up to Tuk from Wrigley. We expect to have all that information. We’ve given ourselves a two-year window to gather all that. Some areas are progressing faster than others. We’ve also completed an economic analysis on the whole Mackenzie Valley Highway system. It’s come back positive. With all the information we’ve gathered, we feel we’re in a very good position to move forward.

We have to recognize, of course, that it can’t be done without federal investment in any fashion. Whether we consider being creative in terms of putting together a P3 package, it would still involve considerable investment from the federal government, who still holds the responsibility for road construction across the Northwest Territories;

new road construction. We can’t leave out the fact that as part of new road construction we also have to be able to accommodate the O and M costs. A road from Wrigley to Tuktoyaktuk would have a very significant cost to operate and maintain. That would have to be paid for by either this government or the federal government or a combination of both. So there’s a number of things that we’d have to take into consideration other than just finding the resources to build it.

The approach to the Mackenzie Valley Highway has been long discussed within these Assemblies and the people down the Mackenzie Valley. Certainly we recognize that the federal government will play a huge part in terms of constructing this road here. I look forward to the day when this government and this Minister can bring forward a P3 discussion or we can have some discussions as to the possibilities out there in terms of building part of the Mackenzie Valley Highway. We have yet to see a P3 discussion or paper in front of this Legislative Assembly to look at infrastructure such as this. So we’re very far back in terms of actually putting the steel on the ground, to cut a road into the Sahtu and build a road up to Mackenzie Highway No. 8 up in Inuvik. I just want to make note to the Minister that we have all these things going for us. Are there other things such as the P3 discussion that we can have to say this is one possibility we could look at? Right now we have nothing in front of us to have a meaningful consultation with our people in the regions.

The issue of the Mackenzie Valley Highway has been on the drawing board, has been on the radar screen for many, many years and with many governments. This is the furthest we’ve moved it with the partnership with the federal government in the history of the development of this road, I think since the last stretch was constructed. The 16th Assembly

has been able to secure some funding to do the PDR and I think that is going to provide some of the backup information that maybe was missing. We’ll be able to put a very good business case together to bring it forward.

We are also securing dollars to do a study on infrastructure projects that could fit, how could we make them fit with the concept of P3. Right now, there are no projects under the Mackenzie Valley road for P3 consideration. There is no revenue source. The traffic volumes are just not there to be able to pay for a large piece of infrastructure, or even a portion of it, through tolls or through fees of that nature. It would take somebody to pay for it first and then recover our costs, and you’re not going to attract a partner that would do that unless there’s an ability to recover that through revenues. That’s something that has to be looked at, and we plan to do that with these new dollars once we get approval from the federal government.

Mr. Chairman, just in closing, these numbers don’t work for us. Certainly, they work against us in terms of the cost-benefit analysis, P3 and the revenue and putting up a huge infrastructure such as the Mackenzie Valley Highway. You know, unless we have a real kind heart down in Ottawa that says we’ll give you a certain amount, billions of dollars, to build this Mackenzie Valley Highway, I think we have to move beyond this type of thinking. It has to be a political move in lining up with the northern agenda of this government, in terms of sovereignty, in terms of a whole bunch of other things that would make this highway a reality. If we were to go on the numbers and what it’s going to cost us and the small amount of impact that it’s going to have, we’re not going to do it. I think we have to move outside this realm and we have to move it to a level of sovereignty and security and other issues that the federal government will say yes, we want to spend money on this road and let’s get going. The $1.8 billion is not much when you look at the whole big picture of infrastructure in Canada, so we have to have more discussions at a different table. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Would the Minister care to respond with a comment?

Mr. Chairman, we don’t disagree with the Member. We’ve used the very same arguments that he’s laid out and it doesn’t change the fact that we need $1.8 billion plus O and M to put this project forward. We continue to make those arguments. We meet with the federal government on a regular basis. We will be meeting again with several of the federal Ministers in early November and we will put the arguments forward. We’ve included it in all our reports to the federal government. We’ve also laid out the needs, we’ve laid out the arguments, and we think we’re moving forward into a better position to develop a stronger business case and we need a lot more of the research to do that. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Committee, we are on page 9-10. Mr. Krutko.

I just have a question in regard to the budget itself. It seems like we’re putting a lot of focus around chipseal, but I’m just wondering why have we not left that open ended in regard to surface materials and not stipulate chipseal. Chipseal limits you to a specific product. There are other products being produced such as cold asphalt. There are different types of concrete appliances being used. There are other countries in the world that are coming up with new ways of applying surface to different types of products that you mix. I’d just like to know why is it that we continue to stipulate the word chipseal, because I think it limits the ability to use other products and it

seems like we are limiting the abilities of other types of products being used. I’d just like to know why is it that we continue to stipulate chipseal in the budgetary process when we talk about resurfacing, regardless if it’s Highway No. 5 or in regard to Highway No. 7, Highway No. 3. I’d like to know if we are open to other types of projects in the Northwest Territories besides chipseal.

Mr. Chairman, chipseal is the preferred material for us to use as we are familiar with chipseal. We know the durability of chipseal. We have in the last little while been experimenting with putting the fibre barrier underneath chipseal and we’ve also looked at different ways that we can improve, including double layering. Mr. Chairman, it’s also the most cost-effective process to use. Asphalt and other products, including concrete, are very expensive. We have involved a company out of Yellowknife to do some testing on their product and right now we still haven’t been able to get more cost-effective material that does a fairly good job. The lifecycle is around five years and it’s proving to be the best way to go for us. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I think, looking at it by way of the usage over a period of time, like you say, five years is usually the life of the product where you basically have to rip it up and redo the whole thing again. I’m just wondering if that’s something that’s the problem with chipseal, it has a short duration of usage and then you basically have to redo it again. I think it’s something that we should be looking at like a product that can possibly double the lifecycle of chipseal, but more importantly, look at other products. You touched on it when you said it’s the cheapest way of applying, but that’s what happens when you go cheap, you have to redo it every five years and it’s going to cost you to continue to resurface all our highways using that type of product.

Again, I think that we should be opened minded to the other different types of products and I think that’s something we should be looking at. Have we been in consultation with our jurisdictions, say northern B.C. or the Yukon or northern Quebec or other places that have tried different types of products? I’d just like to know if we are open minded to looking at other products and try to get more of the lifecycle costs out of the project than simply having to replace chipseal every five years.

Mr. Chairman, yes, we monitor what’s going on in other jurisdictions and we do have discussions with our jurisdictions as to what their best practices are. We have also experimented with several companies on trying to find a better way to make the products last. The reality, of course, is the actual concrete mix is probably 10 times the cost of chipseal and we could replace the chipseal for many, many years at a

lower cost than what it costs to apply the other products, and that would really restrict our budget.

We only have a limited amount of investment in the area of hard topping the roads and if we were going to start applying concrete to all our roads or another product that is not of the same cost, we would have very few of our roads covered at this point.

Our plan is to have all the roads chipsealed as we move forward. It’s a long-term plan but it’s something that we know is probably the best for the protection of our roads.

Our gravel roads deteriorate very fast in certain conditions, including wet weather. Chipseal is a product that protects our roads. So that is our plan as a department and as a government. Of course, it’s probably not going to move fast enough for some people and we’re going to have this debate for many years to come. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, there’s something that was brought to my attention, is that there are products out there that you can recycle, reuse, in regard to different types of appliances. So I’m just wondering: Is that something that we’re looking at as the government by way of reusing a lot of these surfacing materials that can be recycled and reused than simply dumped into a landfill after you rip it off. What are we doing to look at the recycle availability of different products so that we don’t have to continue to reapply new products year after year and consider looking at the option of reusing a lot of these materials that we paying for time and time again, not realizing that a lot of that material is sitting in landfills but they could be recycled and reused. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I probably would have to ask the Member to provide the information as to what he is specifically talking about. We do reuse some of the product that we buy from road services. We use them in a different fashion, however. We don’t mill it back up and put it in form of chipseal, but we use it as fill. I am not aware of any other recyclable way to do it. I am not aware of the situation that the Member is referring to. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that just looking out in the parking lot here, the Legislative Assembly, they ripped up all the chipseal that was here. Basically they hauled it to the landfill. A lot of that material could have been recycled because it is an oil-based product. It can be basically reused. I would just like to know, as a government, I think that is the type of stuff we should be looking at if we are looking at a long-term cost of providing this throughout the Northwest Territories, but also realizing there are savings to recycling materials regardless of what the product is. I would just like to request that the Minister seriously look at that issue and maybe investigate it a little more and see if there are those products out there. We should start

using those products so we can recycle and reuse and continue to basically resurface all these materials over and over again in my favourite Highway No. 5. I know that highway has been done a few times over. Again, we are spending another $6 million on a highway basically that has been done. It is a great highway, but no traffic.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe we have any product that ends up in the landfills. We recycle a lot of the stuff that is part of the reconstruction, and the material that is dug up, we put in as part of fill. We don’t, however, use it again in form of new chipseal. I am not sure of the technologies there to do that. I can’t speak for where the chipseal that was ripped up from the Legislative Assembly parking lot went, but I can say, with comfort, that most of the material we tear up, we recycle.

The Highway No. 5 investment is something that is needed. I am not sure if the Member is aware, but we have challenges on that highway. The highway has developed, over the years, many sink holes as the material underneath is mostly limestone and water is eroding. We have to continue to upgrade it to make sure it is safe and that is something that is challenging us, of course, probably through the climate change issue, but that is an issue that will have to be addressed on a long-term and continual basis.

Thank you, Minister. Next on my list is Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the Minister of Transportation that I wanted to express my appreciation to his staff and work with the communities of Colville Lake, Fort Good Hope and Tulita in terms of the successful completion of the runway extension in Tulita, and working on Colville Lake while it is still in the process, and then working a little more on Fort Good Hope in terms of their runway extension. I wanted to ask the Minister that future working relationships within our region continue and, more specifically, with Deline in that they’re asking about their runway and, of course, there have been some meetings with the Minister and the leadership of Deline in terms of their runway and what is possible.

I want to ask the Minister regarding what little amount of funding that we have, is there any type of funding that could be stopped by the federal government through this department in terms of accessing other dollars that we don’t know about that possibly the leadership of Deline could tap into? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take it we are back to airports. Mr. Chairman, the Member referenced dollars that we

don’t know about. All the dollars that we know about, he knows about. We are trying to be very open and up front with the information.

Mr. Chairman, we have done a number of airport projects in the Member’s riding. In Fort Good Hope the work that was embarked on in that community for the airport is done. We also completed the airport expansion in Tulita. We are about halfway through Colville Lake. We don’t have any dollars identified in this budget for Deline. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Yakeleya, did you wish to ask more questions on airports? Okay. Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Chair, I apologize. I will stick to the highways. Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask in terms of the safety operations on the winter road. The Minister has made comments to the safety of the Mackenzie.

Excuse me, Mr. Yakeleya, for interrupting you. The next section is actually road licensing and safety. Would you like to hold your question for that section? I will take that nod as a yes.

Once again, committee, we are on highways, page 9-10, about to move to road licensing and safety. On page 9-10, Department of Transportation, activity summary, highways, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $50.3 million. Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. The next section we have is on page 9-13 through 9-15. Road licensing and safety. On page 9-14 is the financial section. Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Chairman, the issue that I want to bring up on this part is with the winter roads within the Sahtu in terms of the amount of traffic that potentially could happen this winter, and past winter in terms of the conditions of the roads and the amount of signs that were supposed to be there. Sometimes these signs have a habit of falling off the trees or on the ground. I want to ask the Minister regarding securing more safety devices so this issue is upgraded to more of a standard of road safety measurements of our highways in the North here and give some more attention to the ones in the region that I represent. Can the Minister tell me how he is going to do this under this budget here?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister McLeod.

Mr. Chairman, the investment in the Sahtu has been considerable in the last while. We have done a lot of work. We completed the bypass roads in Tulita. In Norman Wells, we did the approaches at Elliot Creek, Hannah Creek, and Donnelly Creek. We did grade repairs at Casey’s Gulch. We did grade

improvement at Gibson’s, Christina, Francis, Jungle Ridge and Canyon Creek. We did a lot of road widening. All these contribute to the safety of the travelling public on the winter roads. We have also heard from the Member’s residents/constituents that were concerned about the signage. We have committed to have the signs enhanced and more signs put up. We are talking to the company that is doing some exploration in the area and have asked them to entertain a partnership arrangement to enhance the road system. We are hoping that they will come back with positive answers or positive commitment.

In this budget we still plan to continue to do great improvements of $1 million. So, Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of work that has been done in terms of improving the safety issues and more that will happen. Thank you.

Certainly the Sahtu has, as Mr. Minister has indicated and listed off, quite an impressive list of projects, and rightly so; it should be. That is the type of attitude we want from this government in terms of the safety of the public. Not just in parts of the Northwest Territories, we also have to look in areas of the whole North where we need to have safety. The Minister himself drove on the winter road, he knows the amount of signs that should be up there, in terms of his inventory, and the Minister knows the conditions of our roads having once been called by myself a goat road and I hope we have moved up to a different level of standards in the Sahtu.

The Minister has also indicated the number of safety measures that could be put in the Sahtu. I look forward to them. I tell you that these roads could be dangerous as more and more people are travelling on these roads, more and more young drivers, and because our operators in the Sahtu have done such an excellent job in terms of maintaining our winter roads, some of our young drivers are going pretty fast on them. There are sharp corners, there are some big hills that need to be cut down, there are some areas that still need to be worked on, so I expect this government to live up to the standards of roads and ensure the safety of my people.

I have been on that winter road, I was in a vehicle, I did get hit by one of the big trucks on a narrow road. There are people on this road, they are my people, young children and old people, and so safety is something that is very important to us.

I wanted to ensure the Minister knows that putting these signs up means something. I am glad there is some work being done on it, no doubt about it. It is long past due and it is about time that some attention is being given to the Sahtu winter roads. I look forward to seeing what type of plans he has in terms of enhancing safety in the Sahtu region.

The communities in the Sahtu have voiced a lot of concern about safety issues and great improvements to this road for quite a while and there has been attention paid. We have been investing some dollars over the last at least dozen years to improve the road system and I think we are starting to see the results of that.

There have been a lot of bridges built. We have committed and have embarked on putting up signs. There is going to be roughly 98 to 100 signs that will be placed at five-kilometre intervals between Wrigley and Fort Good Hope. There will be over 400 signs, warning signs, over 150 hazard marker signs at the bridges and there is going to be 21 directional signs. We are also going to be putting up signs, or have put up signs, that will identify the creeks and there will be other information signs that will be put up. Mr. Chairman, we are putting a total of 700 signs up in and on the winter road system.

We are doing a lot of work to realign different parts of the road, including Bosworth Creek. We will do more grade improvements at Bogg Canyon and also erosion control at Tulita bypass and other areas. We will do grade work to improve the site distance. We also have the ability now to provide highway patrol in the Sahtu and we expect that will have an effect as there is going to be a stronger presence in the region.

So there is a lot of work and we know the condition impacts all of its users. We know the condition impacts all of the communities and we will continue to provide improvements to the Mackenzie Valley winter road and also to the community of Deline that is in the Member’s riding. That, along with Colville Lake, will receive investment in this budget. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Committee, we are on page 9-14, Department of Transportation, activity summary, road licensing and safety, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $698,000. Agreed?

Thank you, committee. That completes the detail on the department. I would like to now turn to page 9-2 for the departmental summary. So for the Department of Transportation, department summary, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $62.703 million. Agreed?

Thank you, committee. That concludes our assignment here and I would like to call on... Excuse me. Just to put the cap on this, committee, is committee agreed

that this completes the Department of Transportation?