Thank you, Mr. Blake. Are there any further general comments? Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just provide a couple of quick ones. First of all, I see there is no mention about the work being done on Highway No. 4, unless I missed it. I will also say that I don’t notice much being planned. I know this is not a capital budget, but there is no mention of Highway No. 7 at this time either. I think these are two major projects that seem to be put on the backburner. As I realize, this is not a capital budget, but the fact is that these are major initiatives. There is one all left off the table and one is being worked on behind the scenes. You would think that Highway No. 4 would get a little mention in the Minister’s opening comments considering it was being hailed as a triumph of opportunity a few weeks ago.

The other thing is I am surprised how little discussion about the Deh Cho Bridge is on these particular opening comments. I see that they highlighted the decking, the grouting and whatnot. One of the things that needs to be heard in the public is the fact is the milestone of it going to open this fall going to be met. I think that is a critical question that needs to be asked.

The Minister, when he was a Member, that is, asked a lot of good questions about scour rock and a hole in the pier, and I think those questions still

remain outstanding. If the Minister’s replying to my opening comments would update his… Are they fishing off the scour rock in Norman Wells by now? Will they be talked about regularly?

As far as the Inuvik-Tuk highway goes, I am glad it is certainly mentioned here, because I think that preliminary work needs to be done. I stand by that. I will be steadfast on that initiative, that that work needs to be done, but repeatedly, I know I asked and committee had asked for milestones in our own sense the matrix of opportunities where we start seeing milestones passed and certainly voted on. That still remains outstanding, that request that was made in February that the project would have some identified milestones so that we would know what the project looked like in advance of being told, oh, by the way, we have passed too much. We have reached the halfway point. We have to keep going. I think that is only fair to the taxpayer that we know those things. That was at least as I understood it, that was the commitment made by the Minister in the committee. It still remains outstanding. It is a bit of an important point not to miss, because how often we heard about the Deh Cho Bridge, that we have reached a certain point, we couldn’t go back. The fear is this is our second time around on these particular projects, and I would certainly like to see well in advance where these primary points are that, when we are voting on them, we know what we are voting for and we see and realize what risk we have put in front of us and certainly what we will be putting behind us at the particular time.

Mr. Chair, it is all I have to say on this particular topic of transportation at this particular time. I certainly look forward to hearing a future development about that potential partnership up the valley. Still, not a lot of details have come forward. Even for myself, I would like to request something formal, whether it is a briefing note or a package of some sort that addresses the issue that is being worked on up there. I often hear just little pokes, something is being looked at, some discussions happening, but I wouldn’t mind getting a sense of what is happening. If I could be provided some information on that particular subject about this so-called development of a partnership to build the highway, that would be quite helpful. I would be surprised if committee members didn’t want that type of information as well. When I say committee in this context, I refer to all 11 Members on the Members’ side.

At this particular time I have nothing further. I shall and probably will in some cases have comments on specific pages, more maybe on some, less on others. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Continuing on general comments, we will turn back to Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask the Minister… In his opening comments, he talked about the activity. This is an O and M operational budget. I want to take the opportunity for the Minister if there is somewhere later on in the detail that would speak to looking at having some Transportation permanent positions in the Sahtu, somewhere down the line that the Minister can come back to this House or through some briefings. They are Transportation for highways. It does come out of Fort Simpson’s operation and our airport’s Transportation comes out of Inuvik. I think we have arrived at a place where we should be able to, could be able to, and can’t have the ability to have our own operations in the Sahtu and manage our own affairs, so to speak. I look forward to some type of discussion or initiative on the operation plans. When do you think it could be done in stages? It can be done over time. We need to see some movement. I look forward to that.

The other one is I want to ask – I wonder if the Minister could help me here – how did we arrive at 75/25 split with the territorial government? Is there a policy that we have or is there a policy within the federal government that says definitely we would pay the 75 percent on projects like the Inuvik-Tuk highway, the territorial government would pay 25 percent? Can the Minister show me a policy or is there just a letter or indication from the federal government saying this is what we stick to, because if I am reading in the papers and if the numbers are going up on the northern portion of the Mackenzie Valley Highway, then it brings me some concern. Of course we want to support, but when the numbers are starting to fall apart and there are new numbers coming up just like the Deh Cho Bridge, we have some concerns here. We need to ask those hard questions to the Minister to satisfy our need for if things are changing, if things are not going to stay the same all the time, because those numbers affect our own needs for our own infrastructure in our own communities.

I think the federal government also needs to know that we are moving ahead on these projects. I am looking forward to when the Minister opens the Deh Cho Bridge. It is a good thing. It went through a lot of turmoil like a washing machine because of all the stuff. That is part of learning. That is part of growth. We are doing the same thing with the Inuvik-Tuk highway. We do probably other major projects like that too. Not to shy away from it, that says a lot. We are a young territory. It makes things a little difficult to construct sometimes in the Northwest Territories. So I would ask the Minister about the 25/75 split and if Ottawa is solid on that. Do we know that the federal government is solid saying yes, they are going to cut a deal with 75 and you guys take care of the 25, that’s it? So when the project begins, the Tuk-Inuvik road that we’re not 26 percent and

they’re not 74 percent. We stay at 25 and they stay at 75. Can we hold their feet to the fire on that ratio? How strong are we? So that’s what I wanted to ask the Minister and it’s a fair question, I think. At the end of the day, if the numbers are not there for us, will the Deh Cho Bridge go over the $200 million mark? Right now we’re just about there. If I’m going to go into that saga, I want to see that construction piece finished.

So for me, Mr. Chair, those are my general comments until we go to detail.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Returning to general comments, I have Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was just one more thing I had forgotten to mention and I could be mistaken on this particular situation and I have no energy to run upstairs to go research it quickly, but I’m sure I read in the newspaper an advertisement, a position for some type of project officer or manager on the Inuvik-Tuk highway to be posted in Inuvik, and I did think that that was a little advanced in full consideration that the project hasn’t been approved yet.

Again, as I said earlier, I certainly supported the project description and sort of some of the environmental work that needs to be done in advance. That work needs to be done, it has to be done and that work is critical in order to make the types of assessments in budgets and decisions for us to plan to go forward. So that’s why I don’t have any particular issue with that work being done. But it did seem a little odd, from my perspective, and I have to admit I’m sure I wasn’t the only one that noticed it that looking for a project officer or manager. That may not be the right phraseology and I would hope we wouldn’t get stuck on that type of problem, but the fact is that it seems like there was one position being sought after in Transportation.

I think, ironically, Mr. Chairman, wouldn’t it be funny if we ran out and hired somebody and the project was delayed another year or two? So I guess the assumption is, has the department decided that the project is going ahead before Assembly approval, and if they could also confirm about that particular position that’s being sought after at this particular time in advance of an approved project. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. That appears to conclude general comments. We’ll give the opportunity to the Minister to respond. Minister Ramsay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’ll start at the end. It’s better for my memory that way. The first issue that Mr. Hawkins had, I just wanted to clarify. There is a tremendous amount of work that the department is putting into the Inuvik-Tuk highway. That was a director-level

position. It was advertised, it was subsequently cancelled and we’re managing internally for now with a gentleman in that position. So that’s that part.

Also, I wanted to mention, if I could, the Deh Cho Bridge, and Member Hawkins had brought this up as well. What we’re trying to do right now is put together the most comprehensive, up-to-date package on the status of the project, and it’s my belief that we will be able to get before committee during this sitting of the House so that we can provide committee and Regular Members with an up-to-date, factual, comprehensive report on the Deh Cho Bridge. That is before we go to our summer assemblies and the House recesses for the summer. It’s important that Members get that level of detail and we will be discussing the Deh Cho Bridge much more during this sitting.

Also, Member Hawkins talked about Highway No. 7 and I know a couple of other Members had talked about Highway No. 7 as well. Again, this is an O and M budget. Going forward we’d made a commitment to the Member for Nahendeh that we will take a serious look at Highway No. 7 and we will be doing that. I’m looking forward to travelling with MLA Menicoche to Nahendeh on Friday to have a firsthand look at Highway No. 7 and I look forward to the meetings that we have set up there with community leaders as well.

Moving on to, I guess I’ll go to Mr. Yakeleya. I’ll answer Mr. Yakeleya’s comments. I know Mr. Yakeleya has often wanted to have an office, a Transportation office set up in the Sahtu. I think the best way we can get that accomplished is to have a highway run right through the Sahtu, an all-weather road down the Mackenzie Valley. I think that would be the impetus to really take a good look at staffing positions in the Sahtu when we do have an all-weather road going through there. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t be looking at opportunities. Again, that’s going to be an exercise the government is going through on positions and where things are located. That could be an opportunity, as well, but certainly as we go forward here I think that’s probably where that’s at.

On the 75/25 split, we’ve heard that from federal officials. It’s based on a precedent from the Building Canada Plan and the $150 million commitment. That’s where the 75/25 split would come in. If the costs of the Inuvik-Tuk highway are more, 25 percent, if we have to look at putting in more than $75 million or $80 million, then we would have to discuss with the federal government what our belief where the split was and we were of the belief that it was 75/25. So that’s the premise that we’re working off of. We’re still doing the geotechnical work, the environmental assessment is still underway, it’s gone through the technical review. We will get a clear indication and determination on what the final costs will be. We’d be just guessing right now. We

could throw many different numbers out there, but I think until we go through that EA process and find where the aggregate is, and that of course is the biggest cost in constructing a road, then we’ll get a better determination on what the costs are.

Mr. Yakeleya also talked about the statement I made earlier today on the petroleum resource in the Sahtu, and again, I know the Member was listening closely to that statement. We did put a plug in there for all-weather roads in the Sahtu and how integral they are to the economic growth and prosperity in the Northwest Territories and in the Sahtu specifically. I do believe that with resource development we will see a push toward the development of our transportation infrastructure – the two go hand in hand – at the earliest opportunity. I’ve had discussions with both deputies with Transportation and ITI on trying to get in front of the Sahtu Explorer Group at the earliest possible time and begin some preliminary discussions on the future of transportation infrastructure in the Sahtu. As the resource there, the Canol shale formation is proven up. I do believe we have some very, very good upside to discussions with industry on the development of transportation infrastructure in the Sahtu. I look forward to those discussions. I know the Member is excited about that possibility, as well, so we’ll continue to work toward that.

In the meantime, we’re getting some positive indications from CanNor on funding to continue with the work up and down the valley. That’s an important next step.

I’ll go now to… Mr. Menicoche had talked about Highway No. 7 and I think I’ve responded that we are interested in seeing some capital funding for Highway No. 7. We’re going to have to put our minds around how we get a sizeable capital program in there. The highway itself needs a complete rehabilitation that could cost upwards of $200 million. We need to make sure that we have money on a go-forward basis that’s going to address the concerns there on an annual basis. I’m looking forward to discussions on that again this fall.

We have been blessed recently with some warm, dry weather and that hopefully is going to allow us to get, as soon as that road dries out, the $1.3 million in carryover funding for Highway No. 7. We’ll be able to get that to work as soon as we possibly can. Again, if the weather holds out and the road continues to dry, I know there was a big snowstorm and a lot of precipitation there a couple weeks ago. We’re hoping that the weather does stay well.

On the Wrigley portion of the road we do not have any capital today for improvements on that road. We did see some improvements with the Enbridge spill. There was some money that went into improvements on the road. That highway obviously has a very low traffic volume. If it does become a

bigger issue, I think again through the capital planning process we could try to identify funds for that section of the highway.

I’ll move now to, I believe it was Mr. Bouchard, talking about larger projects and how smaller companies are having a hard time getting in the door and how we need to maximize northern content. I agree with the Member. We do have to take a look at this. I think going forward there have been changes to the Business Incentive Policy recently that will take a look at where subcontractors are coming from. I think that’s going to help. Speaking just for the Department of Transportation’s contracts, 91.5 percent of our contracts in value – and this is in the fiscal year 2011-2012 – went to northern and local companies. I believe the department is doing a very good job on trying to keep money in the Northwest Territories. That to me is a primary goal and objective, is to keep money circulating in the northern economy. By spending 91.5 percent in 2011-2012, I think that’s a good indication that DOT is doing just that.

Mr. Bouchard also talked about the Deh Cho Bridge. Obviously the expectation is that it will be open in November. We’re optimistic again that that is going to happen. We will, as I mentioned in response to Mr. Hawkins, have a full and thorough presentation to Regular Members during this session and I look forward to discussing that project much more in depth when we get that opportunity.

Also, we are trying to help organize some dredging in the port of Hay River. I know how important that work is to the town of Hay River and to the marine operations in that town. We’re looking forward to doing that. Eventually we are going to need a sizable amount of capital dollars and we’re going to continue to press the federal government on the requirement for money to dredge the port of Hay River and we’ll continue to work towards that.

On the motor vehicle information system, we did receive some complaints early on in the rollout of the new system. The Member raised it again today and that was the first time I’ve heard it in some time. With any new system there are going to be a few growing pains and we’re going to need to work through those growing pains. I believe we will get there. We’ll see those concerns decline over time and I believe they have.

I agree with the Member and I believe maybe another one of the Members had mentioned the amount of carryovers. We really need to address that and I agree with the Member. We need to figure out a way to ensure that the capital dollars that we have and the projects that we have are going to be delivered in a timely fashion. I hope that going forward, and as Minister I take this very seriously and I want to see the amount that the department’s carrying over on an annual basis reduced. I think once we get over the hurdle of

opening the Deh Cho Bridge this fall, I think we’ll see some more push on getting the projects that we have completed and I look forward to doing that.

Mr. Blake talked about the access road to Willow River. Again, we have supplied some money through the Community Access Road Program over the past two years. I believe it’s in the second year of funding on the PDR, the development of that for the access road to Willow River. This is similar to the road to Source 177 in Tuktoyaktuk. It’s going to be about 18 to 19 million dollars. If it’s determined to be a real need in the Mackenzie Delta for the town of Aklavik, that is something that we will have to look at down the road.

Also we’re looking at options with some contractors on maintaining the receiver at Rat Pass open.

I’ll take the Member’s comments about seeing the people from the community doing the work on the ferries. He didn’t get into specifics but I will look at that and maybe I can talk to the Member and see if there are some specifics that he has. Maybe we can go from there.

I wanted to thank Mr. Blake for his comments on the work that’s done on the NWT side of the Dempster. That is a very nice thing for him to say and we appreciate that. I’ve also had discussions with my counterpart in the Yukon talking about the discrepancy between the NWT side and the Yukon side in terms of maintenance. I brought that to his attention. We’ll see if Yukon is going to put some more effort and impetus on their section of the Dempster across the NWT border.

Mr. Bromley talked about climate change and if we don’t mitigate it’s going to cost us more and more. I agree with the Member. I think we are doing the best that we can. I know it’s a big issue but it’s one that the department takes seriously. The federal government regulates fuel efficiency. Our job, I believe, with all the equipment and operations that the department has, is to educate not only our staff but the public. That’s where I see our role and I think with some of the initiatives that the department has taken I think we are taking a lead role across government in doing some of this work. I’m excited about the fact that we’re involved in some of these national organized efforts on looking at climate change and the impact on infrastructure. Again, I think that is going to help us as we continue to look at the impact climate change has on us. I agree with the Member, we need to look at the cause of climate change not just how we react to it.

I do think I’ve covered everybody that provided opening comments. If I missed anything, if Members wanted to get to that during the detail, I’d be more than happy to expand on anything at that time.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Committee Members, noting the clock I will now rise and report progress. We’d like to thank the witnesses here for your time today and we’ll be continuing… We’ll be seeing you shortly after the break. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

Welcome back, committee. Mr. Minister, you have witnesses to return to the House?

Yes.

Does committee agree?

Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses in.

Welcome back, Mr. Neudorf and Mr. Auger. Committee, are there any other opening general comments? Are we agreed general comments are concluded?

Okay, we will move on to detail. We will turn to page 11-7, which is deferred until we’ve considered the rest of the budget. We’ll move to 11-8, information item, infrastructure investment summary. Seeing no questions, we’ll move on to page 11-9, information item, revenue summary. Seeing no questions, we will move on to page 11-9, information item, revenue summary. No questions. We will move on to page 11-10, information item, active position summary. Any questions on this page? We’ll move on, committee. Page 11-13, activity summary, corporate services, operations expenditure summary, $10.228 million. Are we agreed? Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to ask the department, any monies left over from the Building Canada Plan, any of those monies left, what projects are being used during this fiscal budget year? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Neudorf.

According to calculations, there’s $142,000 remaining in research and development funding from Building Canada Plan. Can the

department indicate what they’re going to be doing with those funds?

Keeping in the theme of this page under corporate services, the recent ban on the use of hand-held devices under the new distraction driving law, can the Minister or designate indicate some of the results of these findings, and if so, when will these results be made public for people to view?

Minister Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s still very early. It’s only been almost six months. To date, there have been 30 charges laid under the distracted driving legislation to date in the territory. For a further breakdown, I suppose we could find out by community for the Member if he likes.