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.