Robert Hawkins

Is the Minister saying that now that we’ve printed this in a plain language document that that’s become a risk?

Thanks. Again, speaking about the process here – and that’s what I’ve been concerned about all along – yes, I asked for a plain language document in the House repeatedly last week to the Minister. Of course, he avoided answering the question the best he could, but what the public saw and what they responded to me was the fact that we needed a plain language document out there in the public, no matter how funny it seems to the Minister, so we can get these types of input and value on these projects, because some of the issues, I have to tell you, I’m not fully experienced in these areas. So I...

Mr. Chairman, I’m running out of time, and I know that Members will be moving a motion here shortly, so not to be too far in my anticipation, but on the $5 million, I will support, but at the same time, I do want to ask more questions during the $60 million portion.

That said, I’m just concerned about the way $5 million is being asked for this late in the game because it’s in this fiscal year. Quite frankly, the reflection in getting here is we are trying to make some type of financial commitment, contract, as quickly as possible. Everybody knows it won’t be spent by this fiscal year and that...

I am curious on how the department is familiar with construction techniques on this area of permafrost. As we all know, Highway No. 3 has its I’ll call it technical challenges rather than laden it with some description probably fair and certainly unfair. That said, the constant excuse I’ve heard was the reason Highway No. 3 is the way it is in its own state is the ice lenses. I believe it was interesting terminology picked out of the air a number of years ago to explain why the permafrost is fluxing and the matter of the ice lenses. Those were Department of Transportation words, so I don’t...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the first time I’ve spoken to this particular issue. I was going to parcel my comments on the $5 million and keep them separate from the $60 million portion, which is on the next supplementary appropriation. I can appreciate the fact that Members had to speak to both at the same time.

I’m certainly in a peculiar position when I think of this project, because, to be frank, I feel that not any one person, I should say it that way, but I feel, to some degree, like we’ve been painted into a corner that if we question the project, that we’ve been seen as questioning...

Mr. Speaker, I’m trying to phrase this in a manner that makes the most sense. I’d like to support this highway. I’d like to have reasons to support this highway. We have clear issues. Last week the Minister of Transportation said we had a $299 million estimate for this particular highway construction. So the royalty fee must be built into that estimate as the cost of the highway. We have a $299 million estimate to build a highway, so we must know what the royalty fee is and that’s what I’m asking the Minister to lay before the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, wish to acknowledge Her Worship Tina Gargan. We’ve been friends since we were kids, and when we were kids she showed leadership qualities, and clearly she’s demonstrating the ones we could always see. I’d like to thank her for coming today. I believe we have two constituents from Yellowknife Centre, Lorraine Phaneuf and Annemieke Mulders. I’d like to welcome them both. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, last week I was asking him questions, or maybe it was the beginning of this week. After five weeks the weeks and days roll together. The other day I was asking the Minister to lay this type of detail down in a public document, one that everyone can see, but the way it’s looking at this point is nobody is going to know the details of the information until the deal is done. How is that fair for public accountability? That’s why I’m asking once again. It’s the Minister’s right to put this number out in the public. It’s not a confidentiality issue with committee; it’s the Minister’s...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to use the occasion of oral questions today to reaffirm my concerns I highlighted in my Member’s statement, which were the cost of the royalties associated with the gravel cost. The issue is quite simple as far as I’m concerned. I would like the Inuvialuit to agree to waive their royalty fee. Now, that doesn’t mean they don’t get to charge for the gravel. I think fair market rate is fair in whatever they decide to do, but it is the royalty fee to be very clear. That would also, in my view, demonstrate two things. The first one, it would show that they have skin...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to follow up on another statement that I’ve made during the session and it’s regarding the proposed Inuvik-Tuk highway, this time with some specific concerns on gravel costs.

It is my understanding that the gravel used to build and maintain the highway is subject to royalties under the Inuvialuit Land Claim Agreement. The land claim agreement sets out maximum amounts for those royalties, it does not set minimums, so there is room for negotiation. Especially when Inuvialuit beneficiaries stand to gain so much themselves from a major infrastructure...