Thank you for that information. I am just wondering what division is that in. It must have been in an earlier one, an administrative division of some kind.
Yes, they are both in the environment section, the environment budget.
Page 13-34, information item, work performed on behalf of others. Agreed?
Agreed.
Agreed. Page 13-35, information item, work performed on behalf of others. Agreed?
Agreed.
Okay now we can return to Page 13-7, department summary. Environment and Natural Resources, department summary, operations expenditure summary, $65.760 million. Agreed?
Agreed.
Does the committee agree that we have concluded the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Agreed?
Agreed.
So with that, I would like to thank the Minister and thank the witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, would you like to escort the witnesses out?
As we agreed, the next department we will be considering will be the Department of Transportation, so I would like to ask the Minister if he has any opening comments. Minister of Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do have some opening comments.
This budget proposes increases of $4.6 million to cover forced growth and $1.8 million for strategic initiatives. It also includes two major structural changes to the department’s operations expenditures in the areas of amortization and utility and building maintenance budgets. This year the department has, on the advice of the Auditor General’s office, adjusted the way it accounts for the amortization of assets. This change realizes a 5 percent or $5 million increase to the department’s budget for amortization of capital assets. The budget before you also highlights the consolidation and transfer of utility and maintenance budgets to Public Works and Services including two maintenance positions at Yellowknife Airport. Overall, this change transfers $4.3 million from the Department of Transportation to Public Works and Services.
One important forced growth item is a new regulatory environmental analyst position. In recent years, the department has become subject to a much stricter regulatory environment which is taking more and more time to respond to and manage. Having an additional position that is dedicated to these efforts will help the department meet the various licensing, permitting and reporting obligations that NWT and federal regulators require. Observing these requirements will also minimize potential environmental liabilities and related litigation risks.
While we will continue to invest in the day-to-day routine of operating and maintaining the transportation system throughout the Territory, I would like to highlight for committee a number of strategic initiatives we plan to implement. These strategic initiatives will allow the department to develop and deliver a number of projects that have a direct and positive impact on the lives of Northerners. Over time, Mr. Chairman, these initiatives will create lasting benefits and deliver on the needs of the people.
One area of significant focus for the department is the Reducing the Cost of Living Strategic Initiative. For next year, Mr. Chairman, the department is proposing an additional $250,000 to continue the seasonal construction of the Wekweeti winter road, and $150,000 to accelerate the Fort Simpson region ice bridge construction. Along with these new initiatives, the department continues to undertake a large number of capital projects including relocating airports in Trout Lake and Colville Lake and runway extensions in Fort Good Hope, Tulita and Fort McPherson. We will also be busy continuing the reconstruction, widening and surfacing of highways all across the NWT and improving winter roads to Trout Lake, Deline and Colville Lake. These capital investments were approved as part of the 2010-2011 acquisition plan last October.
Mr. Chairman, the department has also proposed funding under the Refocusing Government Strategic Initiative, including $500,000 in funding for the commercial transportation and Licence Plate Program. This will focus the department’s highway traffic officers on enforcement activities. It will also fund the launch of a new licence plate for the Territory. It is expected that the cost of this initiative will be fully offset via user fees. We are also proposing an additional $677,000 for the Community Access Program. This is an important expansion of the Community Access Roads Program and with this increase in funding we will be able to broaden the number and scope of community access projects and we can expand the scope of the program to consider contributions for local boating facilities and winter gravel access roads.
Next year, Mr. Chairman, the department will continue our progress on the Mackenzie Valley Highway to Tuktoyaktuk. Last month, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the department announced $7 million in federal funding to complete project description reports – PDRs -- for the highway from Wrigley to the Dempster. This work should take the next two years to complete. A project description report for the northern most section of the highway from Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk has been underway for a number of months and will be completed soon. These PDRs represent the next step forward in the development of an all-season highway. They will allow the government to make a submission to regulators to start the environmental assessment for this project. Finding the significant resources to construct the highway will still remain as a challenge and we will continue to present the need for the road to the federal government when we have the opportunity.
While we continue to pursue an all-weather Mackenzie Valley Highway, the department has continued to improve the winter road. Work to date includes the completion of many grade improvements and construction of 34 of the 40 bridges along the road. We will continue with the construction of the Blackwater Bridge, which is currently underway and will undertake grade improvements. These projects help to extend and maintain the operating season by removing the dependency on ice bridges. This year the department will also be installing a number of road signs between Norman Wells and Fort Good Hope to make the road safer and to better inform travellers.
Under the Maximizing Opportunities Strategic Initiative, the department will partner with P3 Canada to study the feasibility of the construction of a seasonal overload road in the Slave Geological Province. Mr. Chairman, this project, if built, could stabilize resupply operations into the Slave Province and related costs and operational difficulties. This road could also create increased economic opportunities in the mineral resource sector.
Mr. Chairman, very briefly, these are the highlights of the Department of Transportation’s proposed main estimates for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. There are many other positive and exciting projects and initiatives that the department expects to accomplish. I am confident that the proposed budget will provide for the continued safe and reliable operation of the NWT transportation system. I would now be happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman. Mahsi cho.
Thank you, Minister. With that, we will take a short break.
---SHORT RECESS
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole back to order. We are proceeding with the Department of Transportation. We have had opening comments and would like to ask the Minister if he wishes to bring in witnesses.
Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the House.
If I could ask the Minister to introduce your witnesses, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me, on my right, Mr. Russell Neudorf, who is deputy minister of Transportation. I also have, on my left, Daniel Auger, the assistant deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Committee, we’re on general comments for the Department of Transportation. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just reviewing the Minister’s opening remarks I noted he didn’t mention anything about the Aklavik community access road to the gravel source and yet there was a motion passed in this House regarding that community and the community of Tuk access road to their gravel sources through the community infrastructure funding. It seems like we’re no farther ahead than we were two years ago. This department’s going full out on other projects, so I would just like to ask the Minister, when motions are passed in this House how seriously do you take them? What is this government doing to work with communities on these type of community initiatives?
I know the community of Aklavik is frustrated with the Department of Transportation with not getting the attention they were hoping to get and not getting the resources they require. I think that we had a perfect opportunity to work with the community in light of the situation they find themselves. The community is without any real gravel source this year, because the majority of the gravel in the community had to be used for the water treatment plant. The community is out almost $100,000 for gravel they don’t have and now to replenish their gravel source they have to do something shortly. For them to continue on their project under Building Canada and complete their drainage work that they’ve been working on since last summer, they don’t have the materials to conclude it because of not having a gravel haul this year. Those little things that communities depend on are big things for them.
It seems like this department has the focus of the big picture while forgetting about the little guys in the smaller communities. I think this government has to realize that they are not just there for megaprojects whether it’s the Deh Cho Bridge or the Mackenzie Highway. They are still responsible for community infrastructure and ensuring that the community has access to gravel and the ability to improve on airports and the ability to ensure they have infrastructure that this department is responsible for.
The other issue is on an issue I have raised in this House many times on a program we had a number of years ago on main street chipsealing. The Department of Transportation played a key role having the expertise in the House working with MACA. I think we identified nine communities to look at developing main street chipsealing for non-tax-based communities. I think we were only able to accomplish only four of the nine.
A lot of good work was done there and we do have to continue to work with those communities and the Department of Transportation. I think the Department of Transportation has to share their expertise with those communities that do not have that in-house expertise. They should share that knowledge and information with the communities and assist them whenever possible, whether it’s dealing with main street chipsealing or shoreline erosion or drainage issues and infrastructure challenges we’re facing in our smaller communities where Public Works has a presence and a role to play. Sometimes we spend too much time playing with the big boys and forget about the little people in the communities. I believe that this department has to come back down to earth and get involved with the communities and work with them to deal with the infrastructure challenges they’re facing.
I also wanted to elaborate on the area of other federal infrastructure funding. I have been working with the community of Fort McPherson on the Dempster Highway. We have been looking at a means of a pilot project on resurfacing the Dempster Highway. I think the government has to make that decision sometime in the next number of years. We’re doing the widening; we should be almost complete the widening from the border to Tsiigehtchic hopefully within the next three or four years. Then again, you have to deal with the issue of surface. Whether it’s looking at different options like chipsealing to hardtop to pavement or whatever. We have to start looking at that issue.
Dealing with climate change and global warming we have to realize that our highways are an asset. We have to put a lot of money into them and we have to protect that asset going forward. I think it’s important that this government look at some of the options and alternatives. If that means looking at pilot projects to try out different products, I know there’s a company here in Yellowknife that calls themselves Easy Street and they have a product that they’ve been testing on the different roads. I believe they laid a stretch down around Behchoko on Highway No. 3. I think working with communities if there’s a possibility of joining forces on some of these paving projects, that we have to look at that going forward. I think it’s important that we look at that aspect of things.
I have raised the issue of the possibility of a bridge across the Peel River. I’ve done some work on it with people in the private sector. I have had support with the Hamlet of Fort McPherson and the Gwich’in Tribal Council to look at some way of acquiring that project. Again the department’s too busy dealing with the Deh Cho Bridge and they’re forgetting about other opportunities or potential bridges throughout the Northwest Territories. I think this government has to realistically look at that part of our infrastructure and the possibility of replacing the ferry operations with bridges in other parts of our infrastructure, whether it’s the Dempster Highway or the Mackenzie Highway or the Liard Highway. We have to be considering that as an alternative. Also the replacement of culverts with bridges, especially the large culverts that will have to be replaced at some point.
I’ll leave it at that and wait to see what the Minister’s responses are in some of those areas. I do have some issues with the department and how they deal with small communities.
Thank you very much, Mr. Krutko. Next on my list is Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m happy with the Transportation budget. I had hoped that, like Mr. Krutko, there would be more money put into community access roads or the Community Access Program I suppose it is. I see that as a program for the small communities even off the highway to be able to access certain areas they need to access. I know it was used to access gravel supplies and so on and so forth. I’m not 100 percent sure about that, but I understand that from just what I’ve learned over the last couple of years. I think this Community Access Program should really be targeted to communities that want access to certain areas.
I know that in the communities that I represent this program being coupled with, I think, other programs like maybe programs through ITI for parks programs with this program and maybe even private industry, a couple of very specific projects that I want to see come out of this Community Access Program is the first one being the Austin Lake Road in Lutselk'e. I want to ask the Minister about that during detail, I suppose, on what the plans are for Austin Lake Road. Essentially, Austin Lake is, I believe, about 40 kilometres outside of Lutselk'e. But on the halfway mark, approximately, there’s the Snowdrift River where the intention is to put the mini-hydro. So my assumption, again, there is that mini-hydro road, there will be a road from Lutselk'e to the mini-hydro for access purposes so that should be built through that budget. Beyond that to Austin Lake where I think that a lot of people use the lake, they have cabins and so on on the lake, it provides access to that whole area in the east of Lutselk'e that the people there wish to access a lot easier than they’re currently accessing the road. People have trailers, boats, they could pull their boats over there in an hour or so, I think, versus what is quite a long haul by boat to Austin Lake. So I’m interested in seeing this department working with the mini-hydro project and also other areas such as the Mine Training Society, as an example, or any other industry-types that want to train people or just assist with building some access for the community to there.
Another one is in Fort Resolution that I’ve mentioned in the House before, a proposal to try to access a place called Big Eddie outside of Fort Resolution by road. So far, half of the road… It’s about nine miles, apparently, and four miles of that road was built using a training program put on by Aurora College, Thebacha Campus anyway, out of Fort Smith. They had run that program over there where people trained and actually built half of that road. The people in the community felt it was important and would be a real benefit to the community during certain seasons if they’re able to access this area called Big Eddie. I had proposed that ITI, who was attempting to build a road around Mission Island, was to move their attention away from Mission Island and over to Big Eddie and it would be very beneficial to the community if the park was built over in that area. I went around the community and talked to… It was first proposed to me by a couple of fellows that I was meeting with and then I went to the community. As I went from house to house and started asking people what they thought about being able to drive to Big Eddie, having a possibility to overnight down there by the river during breakup and stuff like that, and people were pretty excited about it. I don’t believe it’s a lack of funding but just the will to coordinate this with all of the parties that would benefit from this. Arctic College could continue their training on that road. ITI could move their park, have a park that’s more acceptable to more people in Fort Resolution and also use this department, DOT, using the community access road to be able to access an area for the people. Apparently, during some parts of the year that’s one area where people go there to fish a certain type of fish that’s common in the bay and other parts of the year, and then during freeze-up, breakup, in those areas this access to this area is beneficial for a little traditional harvesting as well. I believe that’s the same too, a little bit of by-product of building this park would be giving the Lutselk'e people access to some traditional harvesting in and around Austin Lake.
Those are two projects that I, like I said, would like to follow up with the Minister and discuss. I think it will, like I said, take some coordination with probably Education and ITI through the college and even, I think, some of the, like I had indicated, the Mine Training Society and some of the diamond industry is interested in assisting there. I think they would pitch some money in and all together be able to provide some access to areas for both of those communities that I think would be very valuable to the communities.
Other than that, I’m pleased with what I see before me. I’ve gone through the budget. I think the department’s going in the right direction for sure for Tu Nedhe and near Fort Resolution putting some chipseal on the road and so on. I like some of the ideas of looking at some of the new products like Easy Street, but I see that more as a MACA and a municipality issue because of the speeds in which I think this stuff holds up, under a certain amount of speeds. I don’t really know, but I just know that chipseal is going to be more economical for the highway. I don’t know about the community. I think that’s something we’d look at and something that maybe Transportation would have some knowledge in that could work with the municipality to provide them some technical specs on this product or something. But, like I said, my main focus for this department is community access road and I know that although the budget has tripled and we had asked that through the Rural and Remote Communities committee, we had asked that money be put into this project, and I see there’s a direct injection here of over $600,000 added to this and tripled the budget. So my assumption, I guess, is that’s something that we will do again next year and maybe move a little closer to achieving some of the stuff that us MLAs want to see insofar as communities gaining access to certain areas around the communities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Committee, we’re on general comments. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As we deliberate the Department of Transportation that’s before us, I’m really pleased that we’re able to work together as a House, committee and the Cabinet, in moving some of the big ticket items forward, most particularly, the Trout Lake expansion of the airport, the relocation of the airport. That’s a huge ticket item. It was the subject of much debate earlier on in our term, but we were able to work together and see the need of it for safety and the travelling public and the community. I’d really like to say that I’m sure that working hard together we can move forward and concentrate and come to solutions on some of the big ticket items. Most particularly, of course, the source of our new debate is the Deh Cho Bridge. I really think that we’re at a stage that we do have to continue to move forward and find some resolution about it.
A lot of my colleagues are asking for an explanation or else a timeline of events right from the cradle of the project. I think they are deserving of those answers. I would like to see us work towards that. At the same time, it will take up a lot of resources from the department, because we do have some hard work ahead of us in order to meet the completion date of 2011. I can say now that I am not going to be opposed to it. However, I think that hard questions have to be answered. I am sure that the Minister and the department are up to the task in giving us those answers.
Throughout my constituency visits, the discussions of our highway systems throughout the Nahendeh riding is always high on the agenda, first, of course, providing local employment and local businesses and access to the contracts that are associated with the maintenance and the reconstruction of our highways and, of course, also for sending a community ventures that wish to work towards that but also working towards, and I have been saying it for a couple of years now. I know that money will be tight but I still think that leaving a legacy of improved highway system for this Assembly can be a goal and still should be a goal up to and including the chipsealing as much of our highways as we can. I know that, hopefully, we have done as much as we can in the Yellowknife area and if we can concentrate on chipsealing in other areas, it has always been a criticism of my constituents.
I am very pleased to see that, of course, from the Providence junction towards Fort Simpson we will be doing up to 70 to 75 kilometres of chipseal. I do not want to see that impeded in any way. It is a huge thing. I have been telling my constituents and the department has been telling my constituents, as well, that is something that is going to work. I would like to see that work and begin as early as we can as well as some of the other reconstruction projects in the Deh Cho riding and, most particularly, the Fort Liard section from the B.C. border towards Fort Liard. I think there is something like, I forget, 12 to 16 kilometres that hasn’t been reconstructed yet. I certainly would like to see that out of the gate early as well.
Overall, it has been great things in the budget from our riding. The completion of the Nahanni Butte access road and I certainly know the constituents there as well are quite excited. They know they see its completion that they can drive to the river in a shorter passageway pretty much all season. I look forward to that. Jean Marie has always been looking for improvement of their road. I know it is classified as seasonal, but I sure would like to see that section completed; that it is an all-season road there. The department strategy, I am sure we can work towards that in the long term.
With that, I am not too sure about the efforts under the marine operations. I think the community of Nahanni Butte has always been seeking more assistance with their docking area and upgrading it. It is certainly something that I would support and look to it as we get to that line item in the budget, Mr. Chairman. With that, thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Next on my list I have Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a few opening comments on the Department of Transportation. I guess I just want to start off by saying this whole thing with the Deh Cho Bridge, Mr. Minister, is not something that is easy for us to be talking about, easy for myself to be talking about. I have the utmost respect for the Minister and the department. However, we are in this situation. I would expect if the Minister or any of his Cabinet colleagues were on this side of the House and the project was in the status that it’s in, I would expect them to be asking the exact same questions I am asking. It is with all due respect that I ask these questions. There are no ulterior motives or hidden motives on my part in asking questions that I think the public wants to hear and wants to find out exactly I think why we even signed up for the bridge in the first place. A concession agreement was signed. Again, I think I will never fully understand why the previous government signed that concession agreement. I think that is where all our troubles flow from. If we can go back in time and have a sober second opinion or thought, I would see us not signing that and getting everything in order before we proceeded into a project where, by the looks of things, we really are struggling with it right now. I want to assure the Minister and his staff that it is my intention, Mr. Chairman, to work with everybody in this House to try to find solutions to the problems that we are facing and to try to get this project built and finished in the budget that the Minister is proposing now. That should be our goal.
I want to let the Minister and his officials know that is my goal to try to do that. The accountability, the responsibility, those are things that, as a Member of the Legislative Assembly and a duly elected Member, the public oftentimes calls on us to hold people to account. That is why we are here. It is never a real easy thing, Mr. Chairman, trying to hold your colleagues to account. We all become friends in here. It is a difficult task, Mr. Chairman, but I am going to keep trying to ask the questions.
Again, I’m not happy that the second half of that project didn’t go out to tender. I know I had some discussions with a number of people on that. Again, that is probably something that I might not ever understand when we go to the market place. There are companies that were looking to provide the government and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation numbers on completion of the superstructure and they were never given a chance to provide those numbers, Mr. Chairman. That, to me, is a travesty. I think the government has never really laid out for Members what the holdup to that happening was.
Again, maybe there are reasons. Maybe the government should put those reasons on the table so Regular Members can see what those reasons are and maybe we will buy into the reasoning and the rationale behind it. The one thing I can buy is the timing and the fact that it is going to cost us money and interest. I can buy that, but judging by when ATCON was let go and the March 1st date, I think there was enough time, Mr. Chairman, to go into the market place and get a price on that superstructure.
It was interesting, too. I don’t think I heard the Minister talk about the bridge in his opening comments or I didn’t see that in there. So that was an omission that I don’t know if it was done on purpose or if that was meant to happen or what, but it is something, at the end of the day, we are spending -- the argument is out there -- $182 to $200 million, somewhere in there on a piece of infrastructure and I think, at the end of the day, we are going to have a bridge across that river. It is a process that has allowed us to get there that is troublesome and hopefully along the line we will learn some lessons and how not to get into partnerships with folks who really don’t have the expertise or the equity necessary to deliver on what the stated intended purpose is. That was the case here.
Members know I have had concerns about that from the word go. It has reached a point now, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what else I can say aside from the fact that I do want to see that bridge get built. I am going to support the Minister in all of his efforts to try to get that done the best way possible.
With that, again, I wanted to thank the Minister and, again, I know I’ve thanked them in the past, but I want to thank the department for their role in the Building Canada Fund and working with the federal government and the City of Yellowknife on finally getting the bypass road into Kam Lake Industrial Park. I may have some questions for the Minister as we go through the detail, Mr. Chairman, but again, I want to thank him for that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Next on my list is Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy with the department's recommendations or budget highlights for this year for Nunakput. DOT, the Department of Transportation, represents 8 percent of our total budget. This budget includes $17 million in airport infrastructure improvements and $64 million on funding for highways all across the Northwest Territories, which is good and we really need that. The Nunakput region is receiving much needed infrastructure and investment. Some of the highlights I would like to include are both terminal buildings in Paulatuk and Sachs, $1 million apiece, which we really needed and we're very thankful for. The infrastructure is so depleted and past its years of good service, but when this summer comes around we look forward to opening those buildings up in the communities.
Also for my home community of Tuktoyaktuk is the $1.4 million airport terminal building, which is going to be good. The ‘10-11 budget includes the $667,000 for the road projects in rural and remote communities. To date, thank you to my colleagues here, we started hauling gravel for access road 177 two days ago so that puts about 100 people to work in my home community of Tuktoyaktuk and the surrounding communities.
The federal government and the GNWT have invested $55 million to construct winter roads and the Tuk access road as well as gathering information to build the all-weather road between Tuktoyaktuk and Inuvik. I want to thank the federal and territorial government for finding that $1 million for the PDR from the feds.
The Mackenzie Valley Highway is a major infrastructure project on the horizon. The estimated cost is $1.8 billion to extend the highway from Wrigley to Tuk. Mr. Speaker, is the GNWT developing any further budget projections beyond the project description? In reports, the federal government has provided a portion of the funding for the project.
The department is investing $150,000 to expand the Drive Alive Campaign, which I'm really happy to see. It will put services, transportation, safety campaigns under the single program, you know, transportation safety concerns across the Northwest Territories, particularly among our young people that have their licences. Mr. Speaker, how are the resources for the Drive Alive Program allocated and the second question I have there is what is being done in the Nunakput communities under that program?
I'd just like to thank the Minister and his staff for the hard work he's done for me over this past year and working with my communities that I represent. I look forward to the page-by-page. It's a good day today. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And good day to you, Mr. Jacobson. Next we have Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just want to echo my comments. I always find the Department of Transportation quite responsive to many of my concerns, so I should put that on record. Although, the Minister always seems to give me a hard time, the staff’s efforts seem to make up for that. Thank you.
---Laughter
Ohhh.
Mr. Chairman, points of order are the next item on the agenda.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister highlighted some interesting things in his opening comments and I just wanted to sort of acknowledge them. I’d like to hear a little more under the Transportation Licence Plate Program to find out when exactly that launch is predicted. A couple of years ago I suggested that we use our tourism catch phrase on our licence plate and I’m not sure what’s evolved from that other than the fact that the Licence Plate Program would start off with some new ones and I’m just curious if we’ve gone with a bit of a tourism catch line or a look and feel instead of saying “Explore Canada’s Arctic,” because, as I said at the time over three years ago, that the Northwest Territories doesn’t really represent Canada’s Arctic anymore. Even though we do have some Arctic, that isn’t our primary focus. We have much more to our Territory than that.
Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Jacobson said, it’s nice to see the road to Tuktoyaktuk really get moving with a gravel source process. I know I’ve supported that initiative since I’ve been here and we’re here almost seven years later and we’re really hearing that that’s finally moving forward.
I just want to speak in favour, as the Minister has highlighted, I want to speak in favour of the work that’s being done to date in partnership with Indian and Northern Affairs on the Mackenzie Valley Highway that will help sort of identify logistics and understand the problem as people prepare to say what work needs to be done, whether it’s technical aspects, environmental aspects or whatnot. I just want to emphasize my support for that project because I think in the long run that will continue to be an asset to our Canadian infrastructure, not just territorial, but Canadian infrastructure. I’ve often thought that that highway, of course, does a lot of things. It opens up a tourism corridor, it opens up a corridor between communities, which unite families. It also helps with the cost of living. So I think it would be a good day for our Territory to finally fulfill Diefenbaker’s dream of the road to resources, because industry tells me that they’re looking for ways to help make their projects cost effective and certainly transportation always factors into these problems, followed by the cost of energy. But the road is a significant component of this situation.
Just on the same note, the roadwork toward the Slave Geological Province, I’m not too convinced at this moment that that’s going to be the end all and be all for the existing diamond mines. I think the problem is it’s going to come into usefulness during the end of their sort of life, but what I think it will do, though, speaking of the whole industry, is it will help the industry again find new ways to do business, it will open up new corridors for development when it comes to resources. So by and large, though, I think that will help continue to provide an anchor to our economy for new ways of drawing new industry to our North. So that road certainly will be a significant development and will change the way we do business as well.
Lastly, I’m not trying to use a lot of time here, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to place a chord or two in the area of the bridge. I know it’s gotten a lot of flack over the last few days and my position right now at this time, until I’m convinced one way or the other, is comfortably in a position of we need to get this project completed. I think, as I’ve said time and time again, legacy infrastructure is always plagued with problems whether its cost or technical issues, people are for it, people are against it. Regardless, once the project is done, once the first couple cars go across that piece of infrastructure, I think people will be going across it thinking why didn’t we do this before, what took us so long. I mean, as most infrastructure projects go, it’s not unusual for them to have price adjustments. Although this will have a full accounting over time, I have no doubt that there’s going to be some people looking back to say what happened here or how could we do projects differently and, most certainly, how can we do projects better. This will be another example of building Canada and that’s my point of view on this particular project. It’s an essential project to the continued building of our North.
I’ll say, with some disappointment, that the federal government has never come forward to assist this government with this type of cost. If we were a province and we had a truckload of MPs or a whack of senators or those types of things, you know, I mean, they’d be at our doorstep saying how can we help with this type of infrastructure. It’s a shame that we only have one senator and certainly it’s a shame we only have one MP. Of course, at this time, our MP doesn’t even represent the party that’s in power at this time. So the likelihood of getting an investment on this project is obviously none.
I really wish we were in a different situation today to have the support of our federal government on this particular project. I hope once it’s done everyone is able to look forward and say it certainly had a rough ride as such but it will become a legacy project for the North because, as I’ve emphasized a few times, people build infrastructure of this kind with real vision. They dare to dream and they certainly take the leap that is sometimes required. I’m not going to sit here and complain about it. We’ve got a lot of positive things we can do and I look forward to hopefully continuing on that type of tone. That’s all I have to say in my opening remarks.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. General comments. I guess I’d like to call first on the Minister to respond to general comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all the Members for providing us their comments and input and raising issues that are of concern to them.
First of all I want to respond to the comment made that this department is too busy with the Deh Cho Bridge to pay attention to other areas. That’s not correct. We have one full-time position and another half-time position that are dedicated to working on the issues around the Deh Cho Bridge. We have other staff that also have responsibilities, such as Deputy Minister Russell Neudorf and other staff that do it on an interim basis.
Last year we had a capital budget of $125 million and we certainly focused on delivering all the projects to the best of our abilities. We had many other initiatives, including working on the PDR and working with the communities on the Mackenzie Valley winter road. I’m proud to say that we’ve moved that initiative the furthest that any government in the life of the NWT has been that able to.
We have also probably been criticized for initiatives such as roads to gravel sources that are outside our mandate. We opened that door when we started working with communities in partnership, first of all with the community of Tuktoyaktuk. We felt this was a good jumping off point to bring attention to the Mackenzie Valley Highway system. It certainly has worked. We invested money through the Building Canada Fund and it has garnered attention from the federal government. They have come forward, first of all, with money for the PDR from Inuvik to Tuk and now for the whole Mackenzie Valley Road. We are still working with communities on that front. We have worked with Aklavik on their desire to see some studies done. We’ve put a couple hundred thousand dollars towards the community study. That’s done. We have also helped them put together a proposal, draft correspondence through several meetings, and the MLA for Mackenzie Delta was at some of them. Now we have a package that’s ready for submission to the federal government. They have reviewed it and I believe that’s going out for submission through the Community Access Fund program that we’re hoping we’ll have positive responses to. I also have to mention that we took the liberty to talk to some of the federal Ministers about the community’s desire to construct a road to a gravel source. So I think we’ve done a lot of work in that area. We’re not mandated to work on gravel sources.
We’re also not mandated to do main street chipsealing as the Member has mentioned. We had historically worked with communities through MACA, who had provided the funding for us to do the application to a number of communities. That money has now been cut off. We don’t have a replacement budget for it. We certainly still have the expertise and we do provide it to the communities that request it. We’d like to continue to offer that and try to move forward. There’s a number of communities that have utilized our department and our staff that have expertise in this area to do some of that work.
We are also quite keen on looking at what other applications are out there for highways in the NWT for dust suppressant or for providing a solid base or protective base such as chipseal or other types of applications. We have, as some people have mentioned here, taken the opportunity to enter into an agreement with a company called Easy Street, to do some testing and experimenting with their product. We are right now using a lot of chipseal in most of the areas. It has a limited life of anywhere from three to seven years. We’d like to go to something that would last longer and we’re trying to find that. We’re also trying to balance it with something that’s affordable. We feel that maybe Easy Street might be the product. We have tested some on the road towards Dettah and we are also testing some on Highway No. 3. We are hoping this will be a product that we’ll be able to utilize in other areas. We’ve made a commitment to look at doing something on the Dempster, I think it was during the last budget go around, and we’re planning to do that. We want to do analysis, we want to do the study of what the economics of providing chipseal are and what the economics of providing Easy Street are and what would work in that area under those conditions.
We’ve also tried to do a number of things with the Peel River Bridge. The Member has done a lot of work in this area. He has provided some unsolicited proposals or information to us about what other people have estimated it would take to put a bridge in that area. Our studies show that it’s around $60 million. We had agreed that we would look at bringing it forward through the capital process. We haven’t been able to do that. But as we package up our new Highway Strategy update, we will certainly be sure to consider including that.
There’s also been comment about the community access budget now being increased to $1 million. We’re quite happy to see that. It had been at that level for several years historically, but over time budget reductions forced us to reduce the program to around $300,000. A lot of communities like to utilize that fund. I have to voice my appreciation to the Rural and Remote committee that had a lot of discussion and pointed out that this was an important program for communities to use, so we have, at the direction and recommendations from those committees, increased the budget to $1 million and I have also expanded the criteria to include marine and allow the communities to come forward and apply to do other types of projects. If there is a desire, they could also use it on gravel roads.
MLA Beaulieu indicated that he is interested in seeing the Austin Lake project go ahead and we think it’s a good project. We have not seen an application yet for any funding requests. We have had some indications that the community administration, I believe the SAO, is coming to town to discuss some options to move this forward. They also have had interest demonstrated by one of the mines, Diavik, and also the Mine Training Society. I have also had the opportunity to talk to them about how they could be involved. There is a lot of interest in it and it needs to be packaged up and put together.
I’m very happy to hear from MLA Menicoche that he feels we need to work together and get things done. We’re quite happy to include in our budget a Trout Lake airport and the money that we got through Building Canada to do that, because it was an area that needed investment and we didn’t have the capital to do it. We also agree with him that we are needing to put together a chrono of events. We have some of it drafted already. As we move forward, and I had committed in the House that we would need to compile expenditures or break down expenditures to date. That amount of expenditures on the Deh Cho Bridge is up to $75 million.
We also are looking at doing some of the final work on the Nahanni Butte access. In the next month or so we’re going to see some resurfacing done by a company from Fort Liard. I think the community will be very pleased about that. We also now have the ability to talk to them or at least discuss the possibility of looking at some form of a docking for their requirements.
The Member also raised the concern about the Jean Marie Road not being an all-season. I have to correct him. That road is listed as an all-season road. Of course, it needs some upgrading and it needs a lot of investment, and we certainly agree with that.
Mr. Ramsay indicated that talking about the Deh Cho Bridge is not easy. I certainly would agree with him. Mr. Chairman, it’s always a concern when we have a project that we are negotiating on, it’s been my policy to provide all the information up front to the Members, but when that information starts coming out to the public, it’s really concerning, and also when we have Members using that information to create a negative environment, that we have to still negotiate deals on, it becomes even more challenging. We agree, of course, that the public need to know, but we also need to be able to all act reasonably when we talk about information that’s going to jeopardize some of our negotiations. We hear the feedback. People are not deaf. They hear what we are talking about here. I’m quite happy, you know, that we’ve heard concerns, but it’s difficult for us to relive history and try to explain over and over again why certain things happened the way they did. We made our best judgment in moving forward and, unfortunately, it’s resulted in a number of challenges that we’ve had to make changes in order to keep this project going.
There is a budget shortfall and the Member also indicated why it was not mentioned in my opening comments. Well, it’s not in this budget, Mr. Chairman. There’s no mention of the Deh Cho Bridge. We’re not coming forward for any money under these main estimates. It is in the supp that has not even been tabled yet, so it’s kind of premature to expect us to start talking about the budget needs that are already covered in a different budget. We could talk about the reason for tendering the way we did or not tendering the way we did, and I think we’ve had some of that discussion. I’m not sure if we’re ever going to satisfy the Member regarding that. I know that the Member has voiced his concern about the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and the fact that he didn’t like us partnering with them, but I’m of a different opinion. We still agree partnering is important. We still would like to see what we can do with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation. We have other partnerships. We have a partnership with the City of Yellowknife. I think that’s working well. It has its budget shortfalls, the same percentage amount that the Deh Cho Bridge has. We have partnerships with the federal government. We have partnerships with the communities of Tuk and Inuvik, and we’re working with the community of Aklavik on a partnership-type of arrangement to make submissions. So I still think partners are important if we’re going to do a lot of this work that needs to be done in the Northwest Territories.
Also, with the PDR, as I indicated earlier, I’m quite happy and quite proud that we’re able to secure some dollars to get that done. The voice of the communities was getting very loud and we needed to do something to move that forward. Now we have the ability to move that forward without having to absorb all the costs ourselves as a government.
We are, in response to Mr. Jacobson’s question about Drive Alive, we have a number of initiatives that we are focusing on to include as part of this program.
Of course, I disagree with Mr. Hawkins’ point that I don’t respond to his needs. I try very hard to be accommodating for Mr. Hawkins. He has raised a number of issues. He’s raised the point that he made suggestions for the new driver’s licence. I would have to find that somewhere in Hansard that he made the suggestion. Mr. Chairman, he’s also been quite adamant on the cell phone distracted driving legislation that he feels needs to be brought forward. I have committed to meet with committee. There has been one motion already that was defeated. I need to bring the information that we have compiled forward to committee for their discussion and to see if we can bring it forward. I think if we are serious about having distracted driving legislation, that we can move that forward fairly quickly. We’ve done quite a bit of work in the last while to this area and I need to have that discussion and we have requested, I believe, some time with committee.
On the subject of the Slave Geological Province, this is one of the few projects that can fit under the P3 program or there’s a possibility. We need to do more work on this area. Right now, we’re looking at a study only and we need to do this in order to see if we have a business case.
Mr. Hawkins also raised the issue of the Deh Cho Bridge. I guess a final comment on that is there’s been lots of work done in this area and I can’t change history on the Deh Cho Bridge. But we did make a number of changes. We’ve changed the contractor. We’ve changed the design. We changed the project management. It’s raised a lot of concern and understandably so, but those things needed to be done. It’s still my position to try to move it forward and get the project done in a timely manner to meet some of the time frames that we’ve set out for ourselves. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. That concludes the general comments. Does committee agreed?
Agreed.
Moving to detail. We will defer page 11-7, the department summary, Transportation, operations expenditure summary. Does committee agree that we defer?
Agreed.
Page 11-8, information item, transportation, infrastructure investment summary. Questions? Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the infrastructure investment strategy, I’m just wondering, given the troubles we’ve had with some partners, you know, and I never have said that we shouldn’t partner with or look for partners where it makes sense. I think if you look at the federal government, the City of Yellowknife, the Municipality of Tuk and some others, I mean, we’ve got some good cases where we’ve gone into partnerships with people who have brought something to the table. Mr. Chairman, I’m wondering if the Department of Transportation has learned anything on the partnership they had with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and whether or not they’ve developed any kind of policy or, you know, going forward, a policy on what they would take as far as partners, take on partners, what that would be? Have they got any, I guess, way to gauge how good a partner is before they take them on? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Minister McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, as we move forward and develop partnerships and sign MOUs with different aboriginal governments, different companies and different communities, we continually learn best practices. This is no different from the Deh Cho Bridge. The Deh Cho Bridge is a P3 project that had no policy, as has been mentioned before. It has since been drafted through Finance, I believe, and I’m sure as we take stock upon completion of this project, we will look at where we could have done better and learn from that. Thank you.
Again, I just wanted to state again for the record, I am not opposed to the partnerships and I don’t want the Minister to think that I am opposed. However, I think the department needs to learn something. This partnership that we got into with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, they never had the required equity. They still don’t have the required equity. It’s cost us as a government nothing but headaches and money, Mr. Chairman. Again, we have to be very careful when it comes to getting into partnerships with folks who don’t have the equity and can’t deliver on the project at the end of the day. I just wanted to state that for the record, but I am not opposed to partnerships where they make sense. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. I didn’t hear a question there. We’ll move on to Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much there, Mr. Chair. I move that we report progress.
I seem to have come up with a tie there. Let’s try that again.
---Defeated
Committee, we’re dealing with detail of the Department of Transportation. We’re on page 11-8, information item, Transportation, infrastructure investment summary. Questions?
Agreed.
Page 11-9, information item, Transportation, revenue summary, Mr. Krutko.
Could the Minister tell me with regard to recoveries, research and development, Building Canada Plan, $264,000, could you give me a breakdown on that? What research is it being spent on?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Underneath the Build Canada Plan, it’s a total of $185 million for the GNWT. We’ve allocated 1 percent of that funding over seven years, so the annual contribution underneath the Build Canada Plan is $264,000. It is generally earmarked for research and development related to climate change. We have a number of different projects that have been done underneath that already, including Aklavik gravel access road study, including some engineering assessments, vulnerability assessments on Highway No. 3, and we will continue to develop additional research, additional programs, as we move forward with the details. There is much happening in the area of infrastructure and climate change impact, so the funding here is not formally earmarked for any specific project yet, but as we continue to gather information, we will determine what the best plan is for the funding. Thank you.
