Mr. Chairman, there are two questions I think being posed here. First of all on the dollars identified here for a little over $1 million as to what it would be for, the building and the site works are substantially complete for this facility. We anticipate we’re going to have an official opening sometime before the end of the summer and more than likely it would be sometime in August. However, there are some deficiencies that cause this to have a carry-over and there’s still other associated work that needs to be addressed.

This carry-over is required to meet our commitment and rectify some of the work that was done. This project is virtually complete and these dollars earmarked here are for the final work that is required.

The pellet boiler is a project that is managed under Public Works and it did not come forward as part of the building design. It was not part of something that was addressed at the time of drafting. It was recognized as discussions moved forward. However, it was felt if the budget was going to be pulled back, if the redesign was going to happen, it would have delayed the project by at least a year and it was decided that the project would move forward with the agreement that an alternate energy source would be included at a later date and that’s what’s happening here.

The $600,000 is being brought forward as a supp to put pellet boilers to offset some of the costs. We expect a five-year recovery for the investment that’s being made and we think it’s a good deal. We

would have had to put in the propane system regardless, to have a backup, and these dollars could have been and should have been, as the Member indicates, part of the initial construction. However, it was brought in too late to meet the deadline. So we think it’s a good investment. We’ll recover the cost over a five-year period and we’d like to move forward on it. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, we did have some discussions with the federal government with the former Minister of Infrastructure, Mr. Chuck

Strahl, and identified I think it’s five projects that we expected we’d have challenges in getting completed. Most of these projects were substantially completed. We needed to have a little more time and we did submit a list to the Minister and received approval for all five. I believe there were two projects that were under the management of the Department of Transportation and three under municipal arrangements. I could provide a list to the Member, if he so requires, as to some of the specific details, but all projects that were outstanding had received approvals.

Mr. Chairman, the Member is correct that the bulk of the dollars earmarked for investment along the Dettah access road has been carried over. We’ve been working with the development corporation out of the community, which is the economic arm of the Yellowknives Dene First Nations. I think we’ve developed a very good working relationship. They’ve done some very good quality work for us. They’re still relatively new at this type of work.

Some of the work that had been done and needed as a guideline and work that would allow us to move forward wasn’t quite done on time. The quarry work that was completed took a little bit longer than expected. The road design work also has been completed. The negotiation process was also slow and didn’t progress as fast as we thought it would. All these have taken more time, which has required us to carry the money forward.

We are in a position now to award a construction contract. The company is ready to start doing the work this coming year. We expect things will move forward a lot smoother this year as we move into actual construction, and we expect all the work will be done by August of this year. The carry-over is required to continue this process that we engaged in in the past fiscal year.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our capital budget for last year was at an historic high of $292 million. We are planning to carry or requesting to carry $72 million of that amount over.

We successfully delivered $220 million worth of projects last year. Of the $72 million which is a carry-over, $25 million of it is for the Deh Cho Bridge. So that would actually, if you removed that portion it, would be around $46 million that we’re carrying over.

There is no connection between the Deh Cho Bridge and the amount DOT is carrying over. The Deh Cho Bridge has consumed time due to the audits that we’ve had with the Auditor General and the Levelton Report, but it’s been restricted to a number of staff. All projects had adequate sufficient management as required. We do not include anywhere in our details that any project has been delayed as a result of the Deh Cho Bridge Project.

It’s not within my area of responsibility to declare emergencies within the municipalities. That falls under a different department. I can confirm to the Member that we have been actively involved with the municipality. We have people on the ground. Our assistant deputy minister was in Norman Wells yesterday. We’ve had some good discussions. Imperial Oil was also at the meeting. Enbridge Pipelines was also at the meetings. There is a lot of concern within the municipality as the Plains Midwest Canada Pipeline sprung a leak and it had impacts that affected the community. We thought those issues would be resolved as that piece of pipeline was repaired. The request was placed with the Alberta Government to put the pipeline back on line. We have since, very recently, been made aware that there is a further pipeline leak just outside the community of Wrigley. Enbridge has engaged their staff. They’re on site right now. NEB has sent representatives and they’re looking at finding solutions to deal with that. That has compounded the situation in Norman Wells.

Imperial Oil has informed us that they’re putting further tanks on line as they need to be able to store the crude that they produce as the natural gas is a by-product of their production of crude. They’re putting two tanks on the line. We expect one to be in service today and another one tomorrow. Both would allow for another additional week of supply. We calculate that there would be roughly five weeks of supply in the system, and we’re also

looking at a synthetic natural gas conversion unit which mixes air with propane that would carry us through. There’s one in the municipality that’s being tested today and there is another one that is being dismantled in Calgary that will be brought up if required.

The community of Norman Wells has not reached that stage where they have put a price tag, nor have they reached

the point where they are deciding, or in a position to decide, whether they are going to go with propane or heating fuel. There is a lot of discussion that has to take place. There are some proposals on the table with a price tag on it. There are other factors that have to be considered. The proposal that has been presented to the community does not include the residents, does not include some of the commercial buildings. There has to be further analysis and we’d have to decide on next steps from that point on.

Within our government we have the Ministerial Energy Coordinating Committee and through that committee we’ve set up a subcommittee that involves many of the departments across our government that deal with this issue that Norman Wells is facing. The chair of that subcommittee is the regional director. He’s in contact with the community on a regular basis. We have people in attendance at all the meetings that they have. I think they had one yesterday. We had our assistant deputy minister there, along with other government representatives. As to whether they sit formally or have been incorporated as part of the municipal committee, I can’t confirm that. I certainly would have to follow that up.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The issue of natural gas supply in the municipality of Norman Wells has been a concern raised by the community for quite a few years now, as far back as the 14th Assembly. It became a very

serious concern as Imperial Oil had indicated during the life of the 15th Assembly that they would

be shutting down their supply. After a lot of discussion, which included ourselves and the Premier of the day, the company decided that they would supply another four years. So we’re on the second year of that commitment and we’re continuing to look at the long-term solutions with the municipality.

The community has done a lot of good work. They have been very proactive. They have engaged consultants and some technical expertise from our departments. I think they are moving at quite a good pace. There have been proposals submitted. There are options they have to work on, however, those haven’t been formalized and that work will continue. The Premier has conveyed the discussion that he has had with the municipality with our department.

[Microphone turned off] transportation report to the Legislative Assembly for 2010 on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1990. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.