It wasn’t clear from the deputy minister. Did you state that this money is a seven-year fund? Is the research money for seven years or is it based on three years?
This is the annual allocation of funding that’s over a seven-year period. So it’s a total of $1.85 million for research and development. The annual allocation in 2010-2011 is $264,000.
Have you ever considered using some of this funding to complete the work that was done back in the 14th Assembly for main street chipseal for nine communities? If you’re talking about permafrost, infrastructure in communities, this is a perfect opportunity to complete that work that was done back then, enhance the work and have it ready so the communities can take the working information, submit it to Building Canada or using some of their gas tax money to implement some of that work. Is that something that can be contemplated for using this money going forward since you mentioned there is $1.8 million in the fund?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Krutko, I believe this is on revenue rather than expenditures. I wonder if your question might be appropriate when we get to expenditures. Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Chair, I am just following up on a question that was responded to by the deputy minister identifying that this money is for seven years. It’s a total of $1.8 million going forward and this is the allocation for this year. So there are other dollars going forward. My question is: going forward, can we look at some projects such as main street chipseal. It’s with regard to the comments by the deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. I’ll give the Minister or deputy minister a chance to respond to that and then we’ll continue under the appropriate section. Mr. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This money is in place at $264,000 until the year 2016-2017. In response to the Member’s question about whether or not we could use this money to do studies on chipseal or dust suppressants in the communities, the type of analysis that he’s referring to has already been done through MACA. They have all the dust suppressant testing for what would work best in the communities. We also, I guess, are doing something in the neighbourhood by testing the new products that are coming out such as Easy Street and we may consider using some of this money to see if that’s something that would work. However, the actual testing in most of the communities across the Territories has been done by MACA, I believe.
Mr. Chair, as I stated earlier, there were nine communities identified and I believe they only completed four. Yet, there are still five communities that haven’t been completed with regard to that main street chipseal program. I know there was some work done, but it’s not all done yet. It’s not completed, so that’s why I’m suggesting if we can use some of this money to complete that work and, more importantly, for those communities that realize we are dealing with permafrost and with research and development and trying to improve dust control for communities.
The reason the program was not continued was MACA decided no longer to fund it. They had other use for their dollars. I think they put it directly into the communities.
In response to the Member’s question whether we can actually put the application for dust suppressant through this program, the answer would be no. It’s not for actual construction. It’s for research and development.
Another suggestion is maybe we could do some research and development into putting bridges across the river such as the Peel River and possibly the Mackenzie up around Tsiigehtchic. That’s another research and development project you can do to complete that work. All you have to do is some geotech work in regards to identifying the different types of soils and find a base for the crossings. If anything, you’re looking at probably a couple of hundred thousand dollars. Geotech work, give you the baseline and start looking at the possibility of developing that. Again, one of the biggest challenges you are going to face is permafrost in those areas. Is it a possibility to use this money going forward considering it’s a $1.8 million research fund over the next couple of years?
Mr. Chairman, we have not considered using this pot of money to do the geotech work that the Member is referring to. That work has already been done. It has been done for some time, so we wouldn’t propose to do it again unless there was something relative to the issue of climate change and its impacts.
I’d like to rise and report progress.
---Defeated
Committee, we are on page 11-9, Transportation, information item, revenue summary. Questions?
Agreed.
Page 11-10, Transportation, information item. Mr. Krutko.
Just a question regarding the bypass road for Yellowknife. I note that there’s another $1.5 million. I don’t know what the total fund is, but is that still the arrangement of 50 percent funding where 50 percent will be paid by the City of Yellowknife and 50 percent by Building Canada or is this over and above that?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. I believe you’re back on page 11-9. Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, the Member’s correct; it’s a 50-50 cost share.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Once again, committee, page 11-9, Transportation, information item. Mr. Krutko.
What’s the total cost of the project now compared to the original estimate?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.
A little bit of a concern. Some of this information is in the supp. The project budget is now $7.6 million for the bypass road in Yellowknife.
What was the estimated cost compared to what it is now?
The budget was estimated to be $7 million.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Time is up. Committee, we’re on page 11-9, Transportation, information item, revenue summary. Questions? Mr. Krutko.
I’d like to deal with a motion.
What’s your motion, Mr. Krutko?
I move that we report progress.
---Defeated
Page 11-10, Transportation, information item, active position summary. Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Chairman, with regard to the maintenance of national parks line, I’d like to know what the $95,000 is for.
Mr. Krutko, did you wish to go back?
I didn’t think we left.
Yes. We’re on page 11-10. What page would you like to go back to?
Page 11-9.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Does committee agree to go back to page 11-9?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Go ahead, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to highways, maintenance national parks, the $95,000, what’s that for?
Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, the $95,000 is for maintenance.
What national park?
The $95,000 is for O and M in the Wood Buffalo National Park, which is recoverable.
How long is the funding for?
It should be obvious. It’s a one-year budget, so it’s one year.
So what do you do next year?
Our budgets are brought forward every year for review and passed by this House. So we’ll do the same thing next year, as the Member is aware.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I remind Members to direct the question through the chair. Mr. Krutko, anything further?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to NAV Canada Occupancy Agreement, the $550,000, what’s that for and how long is the agreement for?
Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, these are recovery of costs incurred by NAV Canada for their share of electrical, heating, janitorial, water, and ATB maintenance.
