It’s a fairly standard process when the highway is ready for chipseal often it is open to traffic. The concept is that actually the driving on the road before the application of the chipseal doesn’t damage the road where it would need a lot of remediation before the application of the chipseal. As the road stands today, we would be able to prepare it and apply the chipseal and that opening it did not cause damage that exists now today had we not opened it at all.

I guess if we can get confirmation that because we opened the road early, a lot of the

granular on the surface was dissipated, was moved around. Some of that granular, actually, now is in the ditch on that road, which means that we need to get more granular on that road. We all know well how much granular costs in the Territories. Has granular been an issue now as a result of this early opening, and again, are we going to see unforeseen costs?

There is no indication that there is any issue with the granular material that is on the bypass road.

Driving on that road recently, there were a number of boulders that I saw on the road that actually fell from some of the escarpments as the road was being cut through a lot of narrow passageway, and at that point in time there was a bunch of red pontoons around it, but there were a substantial size of boulders here. Has there been a full safety check on this road so that, again, it’s safe to drive because, again, these boulders looked fairly dangerous if one was to run into one.

All the highways in the NWT that are public highways are safe, as is this bypass road.

I hope maybe Mr. Beaulieu will drive Highway No. 3 one day and maybe that comment might be challenged, but we’ll leave that for another day.

My last question has to do with the bridge over Baker Creek. We know that last fall there were a number of delays and a number of questions in terms of the bridge that was going in there, and the fact that there were some abutment issues, to the point that there was concern that that bridge was actually put in reverse. We know that’s not the first time a bridge has been put in reverse in the Northwest Territories. In fact, anyone who wants to do any trivia challenge will know that we’ve got a few bridges that went in backwards. I will leave that up for the academics.

Have there been extra costs incurred as a result of bridge problems or bridge schematics, bridge engineering that have added unforeseen costs that aren’t reflected here that we might have a surprise later?

There were certainly delays in the installation of the bridge. There was some work on the abutments to ensure that the bridge sat into the abutments properly. I’m not aware that the bridge was actually put in backwards. There was an issue putting the bridge in that caused delays, but the bridge is in properly now and it’s safe.

Again, one final question. I mean, again, we’re looking at an appropriation here of a little under $1.2 million. Once this appropriation is approved, can the Minister assure us that that is a

project that will be complete, that there will be no more further asks on that highway realignment?

The money that is put in here is a carry-over from an agreed contracted amount between the Department of Public Works and the contractor that did the work. As far as the government is concerned, we have a contract in place. There is a commitment on the part of the company to complete that road 100 percent according to the contract that they have in place, and our intention to do that.

Again, just to reiterate, because it got a nice paid political statement here that, yes, the contract will be honoured and we all hope that this will be done according to the contractor, and I’m not going to disagree with you. Okay? My question still stands.

Do we have any unforeseen costs that taxpayers are going to be having to look at in the foreseeable future on that highway realignment?

There has been no request at this time from the contractor that’s building the road for additional money in order to complete the project. To date, the money we have here is all the money that we intend on putting into that project to complete the project 100 percent.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Next on my list is Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just quickly like to ask about the same project, if there was any consideration going with a higher grade surfacing. As we know, the Ingraham Trail is plagued with high cost for replacing surfacing. The Yellowknives Dene have used a very high grade material in their surfacing of the road in Ndilo. I’ve been quite impressed with the way that’s standing up compared to all other applications of paving that I’ve seen recently and certainly on Highway No. 3 and Highway No. 4. So, has there been any consideration? Is it too late to give that some consideration even if it was to happen, to finally demonstrate to the Department of Transportation what the gains versus the costs might be? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The plan is to chipseal the highway. I’m very familiar with the product the Member speaks of. There was no discussion between the government and the industry that would provide Easy Street on that highway at this time. I think we are in a contract that says that we will be chipsealing the highway. If the company decides that they would put a different application on there within the same dollar amount, then perhaps the government and industry could sit down together and discuss that possibility. But

moving forward, our intention is to chipseal at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Bromley.

That’s the only question I had. I assume from that response that there was no consideration given to using that product here. That’s all I had. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.

The motion is carried.

---Carried

We will sit beyond 6 o’clock and continue with the Department of Transportation. Total department, not previously authorized, $13.972 million.

The Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment, capital infrastructure expenditures, minerals and petroleum resources, not previously authorized, $278,000; tourism and parks, not previously authorized, $1.597 million. Total department, not previously authorized, $1.875 million.