Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We seem to be speaking in general terms here and I guess I’ll ask a question. If there were 41 risks out there in this project, and there were 18 of those risks that were deemed extremely high, is that a concern for a department if that is indeed a hypothetical ratio? Would 18 out of 41 be considered a problematic ratio moving forward? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a complex, large-scale project over very challenging terrain. There are a lot of risks and we’re concerned about all of them. Our job is to identify them, mitigate them, manage our way through them, and take all the steps necessary in getting the project done within budget to be aware of what those risks are so that we can move forward in a careful, planned way. I’ll ask the deputy if he wants to add anything further.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Neudorf, I didn’t get if you wanted to add anything. Okay, thank you. Mr. Dolynny, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess to put this on a comparison level of large-scale projects that we do know of, and this goes back to the Auditor General of Canada who did an evaluation of the Deh Cho Bridge and indicated that there were some serious gaps in the risk matrix of that project. So I’m using that as a comparable tool. Is 43 percent of high risk moving forward on the project deemed a concern for the department to move forward with? Is that a reasonable question?

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There is no set ratio. What is set is that there’s a project that we’re proposing to build from Tuk to Inuvik over challenging terrain. As we go forward, we identify the risks and we mitigate them. The $299 million and the contingency have given us room to capture that and, we believe, allow us to proceed with the project and bring it in on budget. Thank you.

Well, I guess we didn’t get a response to that. I guess we’ll ask that question once – if I’m hearing correctly – this information is tabled. Unfortunately, this information is going to be tabled after the requirement of a decision to be made on the floor of the House before then. It’s very, very unfortunate.

I’m going to use the last remaining of my time to once again indicate my dismay and my dissatisfaction of, being a Member of this committee, not being able to have this information tabled well in advance. This information could have been available to public. It could have been available to Members to be able to discuss this with constituents, with elected officials, and with First Nations governments and with many different stakeholders. Unfortunately, this information was only privy to the hands of Members. Whenever information was brought forward to the House, it was deemed confidential or deemed hypothetical in nature. I just don’t understand, given the fact that

we had a golden opportunity to be transparent, to be upfront and to be forward-minded with a project of this magnitude, why this government, why this department, why also the Department of Finance chose not to be forthcoming on this project with the numbers. It would have saved a lot of time, energy and concern on behalf of Members. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate allowing the last few seconds as a comment. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Next on my list I have Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to pick up where I left off there. The Minister was claiming that I said the people of this region were not worthy, and various other twists to my words. I thought I remembered saying the people were spectacular and the region was spectacular, and they have huge capacity up there if they are involved in real economic development. It does seem to be a feature of this government that they often twist words and make our comments sound as if we have no trust in our people and stuff like this, but I do want to point that out, that in fact I was saying that the people were indeed worthy, and worthy of better than a road like this. That is just an aside there.

The maintenance costs are something again that has been a concern. We have got some information on that, but there didn’t seem to be understanding that, in fact, the road, especially in the more northerly portions, does go over a zone of remnant glacial ice. I believe that was what my colleague Ms. Bisaro was referring to. This is the remnant Wisconsin Glacier. I believe the department officials certainly know that this is the case.

Another high risk factor, of course, is this is the zone where the greatest impacts from climate change are known to be occurring. The rate is very fast and the degree of warming is extreme. To what degree, I guess recognizing and combining these factors, the fact that this area over which the road is being built has not just got permafrost, it has substantial ice lenses that are more than ice lenses, they are remnant chunks, vast chunks of Wisconsin Glacier in combination with the degree of warming in the order of 15 degrees that can be expected, Celsius, in our winters. Can the Minister comment on that aspect of it? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I’m going to let the Minister think about his answer to that question while we take a break for supper. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

Welcome back, committee. I will call committee back to order. We’re on page 5 of Supplementary Appropriation, No. 3. Continuing on with questions I have Mr.

Bromley. Mr. Bromley, I will give you the full 10 minutes here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had posed a question, if you will recall, to the Minister. Would you like me to repeat that question?

We’ll ask the Minister first if he’s prepared to answer it. If not, we’ll get you to repeat or rephrase it. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could get the indulgence of the Member to repeat it, please.

Duly noted. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did think the instructions of the Chair were for the Minister to take a break to prepare an answer. Just kidding, Mr. Chairman.

I think the Minister, first of all, didn’t respond to my colleague Ms. Bisaro accurately when she asked about the glacier ice on the road, and I think he now understands that, in fact, there is remnant Wisconsin Glacier ice in the northerly parts of the route proposed for this highway. Obviously, we know from our experience with highways throughout the Northwest Territories that this translates to dollars, especially when we’re talking maintenance of highways.

Of the many high-risk factors that have been identified – and I think I’ve heard of about 18 or something like that – climate change has been identified as one of them, which makes sense because this highway goes through the zone of the biggest climate impact and the impact is warming, which, when warming interacts with those large parts of remnant glacier ice, we’re talking about very, very serious costs.

I know the Minister is familiar with the situation with climate change. In fact, it’s getting considerably worse and more dire as the months now go by. The literature is clear. In fact, we’re now learning that the polar ice cap is starting to break up right here during the month of March, months before normal. This year, for the first time ever. Very scary business for scientists that know about these things; apparently not to the public or this government.

My question was, given these juxtaposition of serious factors here with great amounts of glacier ice, a great degree of climate warming predicted, what are the consequences and how can we address this risk without affecting the cost of the highway?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. We’ll go to Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member, at one point, asked as well about the economic benefit of the road. The $2

million a year maintenance budget could be seen as it will employ local people and local contractors, so that will be one of the ongoing benefits.

In regard to how do we mitigate the impact of going over these areas where there are remnants of glacial ice and ice lenses, I’ll ask Mr. Neudorf to respond.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Neudorf.

Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Mr. Bromley.

Of course, warming is also double the rate in this area compared to down south, and so we will be seeing impacts of that that are not on the road itself but that will connect to the road in an insidious way, and so there will be costs from that. But I am learning that so now the work to be done is not just the 50 bridges and so on, or 60 river crossings and 10 bridges, but it’s also to deal with this highly problematic 12 kilometres, and we have not designed the highway yet on how to deal with that 12 kilometres. Have I got that correct?