I’d like to pose my question now that I’ve got confirmation that that’s where that is. The maintenance of the existing network of highways is purportedly, according to the department presentations, priority number one, and I think most of my colleagues would agree that that’s an appropriate policy, a correct approach. Unfortunately, we have fallen far behind on maintenance of our highway systems and abandoned that responsibility to a large degree, especially in this budget this year, in favour of accelerating new projects and at an unwarranted pace, as was referenced by the deputy minister.
These are, unfortunately, projects that are both expensive and still unknown as to what their costs are, although each estimate we come up with seems to be greater than the one before. Some immediate examples come to mind. Highway No. 7 we’ve heard a lot about. The Detah road is certainly one in my riding, and the Ingraham Trail, massive work being put into that and already we can see the impacts there. Highway No. 3 and so on. Additionally, though, the new projects are proposed in the most problematic terrain we have and thus these new projects are committing us to yet greater annual maintenance requirements and subsequently greater deficits. I don’t know how we’re going to catch up here if we don’t look after the highways, which is our current situation.
These do cost our residents both in terms of their vehicles and so on, and communities’ vehicles, business vehicles, et cetera, and they are starting to get into the area of increasing safety risks. Clearly, that sort of approach is sustainable. The department would be the first to say that. The Minister would say, and the deputy minister had already said, that a balance of old and new projects’ maintenance and new projects is what they are striving for. Clearly – and even this has come out from the staff – they are not doing the maintenance that is required. How can the Minister justify this? Is this the sort of thinking that have got us in this situation, and so many other areas of government, including other areas of Transportation?
The Deh Cho Bridge has cost hundreds of millions of dollars of options and services that government could have delivered and could be delivering over the next 35 years. This is not a light one to me. This can’t be put aside as, oh, we need a balance and we will go for these new projects and catch up later. This government has already experienced deficits in our infrastructure maintenance and so on. I would like a more in-depth explanation both how this can be justified and how we are going to get out of it, given that the cost will only get worse, particularly given the impacts of climate change and any new development activities we enjoy. Thank you.