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.