Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question here with regard to the item rehab of Highway No. 3. This is on the budget. I suspect that we’re not going to be able to rehabilitate that whole section of highway in one year. I’d like to know, from the Minister or his officials, whether this is a one-year project or if it’s an ongoing and multi-year project.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the end of the BCP funding. For a more detailed look at the future of the rehabilitation of Highway No. 3, I’ll ask Russell to provide that.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Neudorf.

Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Ms. Bisaro.

Thanks to the Minister and the DM for the info. If we have money in budget just for this one year, and I’m presuming this is about 100 kilometres, how many kilometres is the money that’s in the budget for this one year going to get us? How many kilometres are we going to be able to rehabilitate? I guess my second question, in light of that, is how many years does the Minister expect that it’s going to take to fully rehabilitate these 100 kilometres?

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The plan would look at 20 kilometres. As far as the future rehabilitation, that will be ongoing. We foresee a need to look at rehabilitation of that highway for the foreseeable future. We have some test areas where we’re looking at different types of innovative ways to manage the ice lenses and the permafrost, the degradation of the permafrost so that we don’t encounter the heaves and rolling that the public and Members see on that highway today. We have some hope for the future, but it is going to take some investment and, as the deputy minister alluded to, we’re hopeful for a new infrastructure arrangement and plan coming forward from the federal government that will hopefully give us the necessary capital dollars to put some effort into the rehabilitation of Highway No. 3 and other highways around the territory.

Thanks for the explanation. It’s a little disturbing that it sounds as though, from the Minister’s language, that this is going to be a forever project. I appreciate that the department is experimenting with different possible solutions and so on, and I sure hope that we find one, but if we’re going to be spending a significant amount of money every year kind of in perpetuity, I guess that would be my question. Is that what we’re going to have to do or does the Minister see that there is some end in sight to having to continually rehabilitate this section of Highway No. 3?

I appreciate the Member’s concern. Certainly, we’re looking forward to the results from the test sections and the work that is being done that the department is undergoing. Hopefully we can find a way forward that will see us not have to spend as much money on rehabilitation. Like I said, for the foreseeable future, until we come up with a game plan, until we realize the results from those tests, we’re going to have to plan to rehabilitate sections of that highway. Perhaps, for a more detailed response, we could go to Mr. Neudorf.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Neudorf.

Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Ms. Bisaro.

I guess just one comment. I can’t help but think about the proposed Inuvik-Tuk highway and maintenance on that highway when I talk about Highway No. 3 and the difficulties we have with Highway No. 3. I can only imagine that the maintenance and difficulties that will be encountered on an Inuvik-Tuk highway will be far worse. That’s just a comment.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk highway certainly would be built on an area that’s much different terrain than Highway No. 3 is. It would be much more like the Dempster. You wouldn’t see the discontinuous permafrost there. It would be more permanent permafrost in that region where the highway would be constructed. I mentioned earlier, maintenance costs will be estimated to be what they are on the Dempster, and that is roughly one half to two million dollars a year. It’s a different type of highway. And it’s gravel. It will be gravel as well.

That’s fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m done.

Thank you. Moving on to questioning I have Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to say that it looks like the department has done well in trying to allocate resources here that we do have for our highways. I just wanted to ask them detailed questions, particularly on Highway No. 1 from Providence junction towards Fort Simpson, for now. Of course, my biggest concern is Highway No. 7, but I’ll try and

use my time expeditiously or ask a second set of questions with regard to Highway No. 7.

I think with Highway No. 1 from Providence junction towards Fort Simpson is about keeping on top of our infrastructure that’s there and some of the chipseal work that we’ve done. Of course, I have been assured, like you see, more chipseal work done from the Providence junction towards Fort Simpson. It really improves the safety of our highway when we have the chipsealing. I know that some work has begun, so maybe if I could just get a little bit more detail on the strategy from the Minister on the chipsealing efforts between Fort Providence and Fort Simpson.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. For a response to that we’ll go to Mr. Neudorf.

That kind of answers my questions in terms of future work and expansion of chipseal down Highway No. 1.

I’ll just turn my attention to Fort Liard. There was actually quite a bit of repairs and I think they were using fibre cloth during my last trip to Fort Liard this year. Maybe I can get an explanation of the work that was done this year and the plans set for next year for Fort Liard and Highway No. 7.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister Ramsay.