Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the committee strongly recommends that the Department of Transportation consider utilizing its Build Canada Plan Research and Development Funds to conduct highway geotechnical assessments on gravel roads adjacent to rural and remote communities to support and build upon work previously conducted under the GNWT’s main street chipsealing program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The motion is in order. It is being distributed now. We will just wait one minute for the motion to get distributed. Okay, it looks like it has been distributed. To the motion.
Question.
The motion is carried.
---Carried
Thanks, committee. We are on page 11-21, highways, operations expenditure summary, $54.2 million.
Agreed.
Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a while since I heard everything in sync over here. I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First one is the P3 project policy. I understand that within the Cabinet, probably discussed it that something that we would see in terms of bridges or infrastructure in regards to transportation in terms of we have a look at the P3 policy in terms of going forward.
There are some discussions by my members in the Sahtu to talk about whether the government is interested in a P3 project. They make reference to the Deh Cho Bridge and that project and if there’s something we can do or at least have serious consideration for projects we want to see built in the region.
Minister of Transportation.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the information is gone to committee and the Finance department is waiting for a response. That’s my understanding. The responsibility for the P3 policy doesn’t fall under me, so I’m just relaying the message.
Fair enough. I’ll have to check my correspondence and get back to the Minister for information. Even though the P3 policy isn’t under the Minister’s responsibilities, it is closely related to projects we want to look at. I guess I’ll have some discussions with him on how far we can go on this issue here to look at major projects we want to build in the North and in my region.
I want to ask the Minister about the memorandum of understanding with this government. I know it’s administered by ITI but there are maintenance and highways contracts, winter roadwork, airports with this department. I haven’t yet seen a percentage of contracts that are with aboriginal local business companies. I know the Gwich’in have an impressive number -- and I could be wrong -- of work that is done with this department to support local companies in their region. Is that something this department is following on their type of work that they’ve already done with the Gwich’in people that the Sahtu could follow to support the aboriginal people?
The Member has raised a question about the MOU. That is something this department follows. It was an agreement signed by our government and the people of the Sahtu. We have targets and track the amount of investment that goes to the aboriginal governments. Or I should say the Sahtu-based businesses. Right now in the Sahtu for the last year we expended 70 percent to those companies.
Certainly that’s a good number to live up to. I hope this continues or even higher with going up to 100 percent. However, that’s something that we’ll work towards. I like the numbers here.
I wanted to talk about the issue of main street chipsealing. I know the Minister has talked about pilot projects and if it’s successful, of course, he talked about the money. I, too, would like just to comment on this issue here. It is with another department. I don’t think this department has any mandate to do this project, however, I look forward to seeing if this is successful in other regions. Would the Sahtu region be considered for a chipsealing project? It was done in Fort Good Hope. I know there are lots of potholes in that chipsealing program. It is with MACA, so I guess it gets kind of difficult sometimes to see where we get funding to do the chipsealing program and just do the maintenance of it. I want to ask the Minister about his department also looking at the Sahtu.
The Minister of MACA is listening with great interest as we talk about main street chipsealing. It falls under the mandate of that department. We don’t have any responsibilities in that area. We do have, as I stated yesterday, expertise. We have people who can advise communities and help them with the packaging up of a tender and things of that nature, if that’s required. We would certainly be happy to do that. But we do not have in this budget any money for main street chipsealing. That would be completely under a different department.
I do want to say that I know that the department does have expertise and the department I need to bring this up with is MACA. However, the Minister has offered to, if the community does want to look at chipsealing, that there’s expertise there that could assist with looking at what they can do. I want to just leave it at that rather than pushing this issue any further with this department here.
I want to ask the Minister about the contributions this department is making in terms of staff time for megaprojects such as the Deh Cho Bridge. I know they have some staff that is assigned to the project. Is this something that is within the department that there is staff assigned or dedicated to other projects in the Mackenzie Valley for infrastructure being built for Transportation?
This question was asked yesterday, too, and I responded by indicating that we had one full-time position that was there and another half-time position that was dedicated to this project. We have a number of other people that have responsibilities, although not full time. Our deputy minister also spends time on it. Our legal people. Things of that nature. There are a couple of positions that are committed, but there are others that only have certain responsibilities in that area. There is a fairly small group of people that work on this project.
The increase to the Community Access Program is a very popular program in my region. I know I had a discussion with a resident in Tulita who took advantage of this program. He was very grateful for this program. I think he was very happy that he’s going to continue doing the work. I think he’s going to be very happy to see the increase in funding to this program, to look at the benefits of the Community Access Program. It also includes the marine services. It’s interesting to see what type of criteria is going to come forward in the application to see where the marine will be into this program. I look forward to the rollout of this program with the new funding. I want to thank the Minister and staff for working with my constituent on this program. We’ve seen benefits. Even though there was very little when dealing with millions of dollars, 40,000 or 25,000 is quite a good number.
I know we have other things. I want to ask the Minister about the Slave Geological Province study. They still have to build a business case in light of what we’re hearing on the wildlife. Is this something that they’re going to take into consideration, is the impact on wildlife if they go ahead with a business case to look at a P3 project that will go right into prime animal country? That’s something that we should maybe have a red flag when looking at it. Otherwise you’re going to have to come to another issue on this.
Our intention at this point is to do an economic analysis of the business case. There has been some work done privately by the mines themselves and if it was to proceed any further than what we were planning, then it would have to go to a full environmental review and it would also have to have funding allocated or identified to pay for the construction portion. So we’re quite a ways from having any actual scoping in that area. Thank you.
We’re on page 11-21, operations expenditure summary, highways, $54.220 million.
Agreed.
Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Chair, just one comment here I want to make and it’s going to be very short. I want to say in terms of the Deh Cho Bridge in terms of this project here, it’s something that I want to say, Mr. Chair, that when the ferry was out of commission, when they had to fly food into Yellowknife and then fly it up to one of my constituents, in their home town, they realized that the increase in price went up very high. When the ferry was back in, the constituent phoned me back and said our prices in the store went down. That’s the phone call that I got from a constituent. So the constituent said even though we would like to see bridges built in the Sahtu along the road, this P3 project here is going ahead. There are lots of questions there, but I just want to let you know that it’s an observation he made. He called me on that and he said just get the bridge built and start working on the Mackenzie Valley Highway and other bridges. So I wanted to say that to the Minister here. There are lots of discussions, lots of issues around it, but I think that’s something that we should really look at in terms of this bridge here. This is from a Sahtu constituent in my riding that wanted me to relay the message, so I wanted to say that to the Minister that this is important.
There are certainly a lot of interpretations, lots of views in my region as to why we’re building this bridge and why we should put all this money into the bridge. I think I want to see the benefits of the bridge and how it’s going to impact the Sahtu. But that’s one comment I got from a constituent that said we’ve seen the difference, so if the bridge is going to bring prices down in my community, lower the cost of living, you know, finish off the bridge, get it done, and start working on other areas here. I think you’re going to have some good lessons to learn on this one here.
For myself, I’m going to continue to support the construction of the bridge here. As people in Fort Providence, I talked to people in Fort Providence and they also said to us to work with them and to continue. Actually, an elder told me this about this, so I have to listen to what that elder says in Fort Providence about this bridge here. So I think your department is learning some hard lessons here and I think you need to get the job done. I wanted to ask more questions but I’m going to leave it at the, Mr. Chair, because it’s going to open up a lot of other questions that maybe we can talk about later on.
Minister, do you want to respond?
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Member’s comments. We haven’t included the Deh Cho Bridge as part of this budget. It will be coming forward in the supp that I expect to be tabled in the next little while. There’s no reference to the bridge in this budget because there is no budget line in it. Thank you.
Okay. On highways, operations expenditure summary, activity summary, $54.220 million.
Agreed.
Moving on to page 11-22, information item, active positions, highways. Any questions?
Agreed.
Marine, page 11-25, activity summary, operations expenditure summary, $7.808 million. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In terms of forward thinking here, some of the residents in the Sahtu are asking if or when the bridge is built and the Deh Cho Bridge is finished and built and people are using it, is there any possibility of this department looking forward in terms of maybe having a ferry service from Wrigley or wherever to Tulita or the Wells area? They like to come down to drive on the highway there. I know it’s something that they could look at, look at the cost or whatever, or at least do an analysis of it and say, yes, it’s a good thing or, no, it’s not a good thing. I know they talked about that. I know there are provisions with two of the barging companies to do transfer vehicles, but it’s once or twice a month. They just asked about the ferry service. It’s just a question I want to ask the Minister here.
Minister of ferries.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is a service that’s been provided by the private sector for some time. Cooper Barging and NTCL already provide that service. It’s not an area that we’ve looked at entering. It’s going to be fairly costly to do so and there have been no plans to move or relocate any ferries to that area.
The Minister is correct that NTCL and Cooper Barging do provide the service; however, it’s whenever the barges are loaded up and it’s economical and feasible for them to make a trip up the north or a trip down the south. It’s all based on the number of loads and what they can carry. Cooper Barging does do it. NTCL does do it. This one here, I’m looking at a government service that can bring maybe once a week or twice a week, something like that, twice a month or whatever. I’m looking at the economic feasibility. Maybe people have to pay. I’m not too sure in terms of this here, but can they look at it, look at the options? We’re building infrastructure -- very costly, very costly to this government here -- and so I want to just ask if the Minister is open to looking at something like this, an analysis. You know, have the staff who have the expertise look at what it will take and just say go, no-go, then that’s okay. That’s what I’m asking for.
Mr. Chairman, we haven’t considered it and I don’t think it’s something that we’d be very interested in entering into. It’s an area that’s, of course, driven by demand. There are two companies that already provide it. Granted, it’s not on the scheduled service that the Member is asking about. I believe one of the companies has already tried to set up a scheduled service and didn’t feel the demand was there to warrant it, so it’s as needed. We do provide infrastructure for transportation. The service right now for this area that the Member is talking about is provided by private enterprise. Thank you.
I wasn’t aware that Cooper had made the attempt to look at a regular service schedule, on demand, and...(inaudible)...maybe unfeasible and the community, the region, I’ll have to go back and check and see if it’s something that they want me to continue to push from this government here to say we want to look at this. Maybe the department may not want... I mean, a lot of things that we don’t want them to do they still do. So we have to have a little bit of flexibility there in terms of what we’re asking for. I will just leave it at that and I will do some of my own checking and my own research. I wasn’t aware that Cooper had tried and had made some discussion of that. So I’ll just leave it at that, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairman, yes, I can confirm that it was attempted. It was in partnership with a trucking company. If the Member is interested, we can provide him with some time, dates of when it was attempted and as much information as we have at our disposal.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is all I have for the Minister. I do want to thank him and to take him up on his offer in terms of getting some specifics on this issue here. I will see where I go from there. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Next I have Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just supporting my colleague from the Sahtu. I know that, in most jurisdictions you go to, East Coast, you go to B.C., they have isolated communities, coastal communities who receive ferry services. It is a public service that they provide. Ferry service is a public service. I think that what Mr. Yakeleya is asking for is, has this government ever considered looking at providing services to coastal or communities that are isolated like other parts of Canada, either the east or west coasts in regards to ferry operations to those communities who can scavenge only once every two weeks or every three weeks or charge $30 a head whenever, when at least provide that public service to those communities on the Mackenzie River like they do in other parts of Canada? Have you ever considered that and looked at that possibility as a program that this government can offer to those communities during the summer months?
Once the ferry basically is going to be commissioned out of the Deh Cho Bridge, once it is concluded, that ferry will have to go somewhere. I believe that maybe at that time we can consider such a proposal and do a feasibility study and work with those communities and see exactly does that make practical sense. Is it worth building a $1.8 billion highway? Is this another alternative we can look at to reduce the cost of living in those communities? Offer them basically an opportunity to get out of the communities during the summer months either with their vehicle or with their families, go south, do their shopping, go back to their communities like they do in other parts of Canada. I am just following up on my colleague’s question. I think that is where he is coming from. As the government is responsible for providing that public service, have we ever considered looking at it, how they provide that service in other parts of Canada?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Michael McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, if the suggestion the Member is making was viable and feasible, of course we would consider it. Right now, there is a totally different comparison that is being made from Vancouver to Tulita. There is a huge population difference. As the Member has indicated himself, there are companies that are already trying to do it and the demand is not there. There would have to be a chargeback mechanism incorporated into using a ferry.
The ferries in B.C. or any of the coasts that are being referenced here have a charging system in place. Because they have the frequent number of trips and a high level of population, of course it is viable. We don’t have that. In our case, it is probably still cheaper to fly than to have a ferry run back and forth. It would probably take all of two days to go from one community to the other. The carrying capacity is very limited on a ferry. We would have to be convinced that there is a business case there. I can’t see it from a quick snapshot, but we want to investigate it further. We certainly can. It just doesn’t seem like it would make sense.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that is all we are asking, is do an investigation. We don’t have to spend any major dollars. Work with those communities. Present that as an option going forward. At the end of the day if the numbers don’t add up, we know it is not feasible, but at least make the attempt to look at this as an alternative way of providing services to all of the communities in the Northwest Territories in regards to this proposal. All I am asking is if he would consider looking at this as an alternative way of providing services to those communities during the summer months of the year when they are isolated and possibly be able to move people from their communities to be able to hook on to existing highways regardless if it is Wrigley south or the Dempster Highway south by way of Good Hope or whatever. That is all we are asking for. Consider it.
Mr. Chairman, of course, we appreciate the Member’s comments and his desire to be creative. We can look at it. We can do a quick analysis maybe on one portion from Tulita to Wrigley, for example, and provide that information to the Members, whoever is interested to see it. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, the other issue I had on marine, I know it has come up several times especially from the region I represent, is dealing with the approaches in regards to ferry approaches, the amount of gravel that is being used. I know that this issue came up at a couple of meetings that were held with the department and the Gwich’in Tribal Council. Also this has come up at the Gwich’in assemblies. I know that there have been concerns raised from myself in this House about people that still had used those waterways for traditional activities such as fishing during the summer months and the concern this has in regards to the effect it has on that activity. I know we have discussed this issue in regards to looking at alternative ways of dealing with the ferry land in communities, especially in regards to the situation on the Peel and the Mackenzie. I would like to ask the Minister, had you had an opportunity to look at that and look at some options going forward in trying to avoid this situation that environmental or concerns raised by communities in regards to the type of activity of dumping loads and loads of gravel into the rivers every year and then basically we have been doing this going on almost 30 years. People are getting a little concerned with it.
Mr. Chairman, first of all I guess we should point out that we do abide by all the permitting and regulations that are required. The gravel is something that is acceptable. We meet the limits that are allowable in our permitting. We have heard from communities for many years. We have also heard from the MLAs from their ridings. That has been a concern. We are not sure if changing our practice of using gravel would eliminate the build up of gravel in different areas downstream. However, we have heard the concerns. We have started investigating solutions to dealing with that. We drafted some plans to incorporate pads that can be moved, concrete cement pads that we will be looking at installing at the landing at some point. We need to have further discussion with the tribal council and people of that area and see if that is something that would be acceptable. We will move forward as required.
Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to thank the Minister for trying to deal with this issue, because this issue is not coming from the tribal council. It is coming from the renewable resource council who are responsible for fishing and harvesting activities. Again, sure you might have a licence from the legal authority. This has been an issue before. They have requested that before they gave you a licence, you had to do a bunch of research. Again, they have put those regulatory bodies on notice that this is going to be an issue next time you have a renewal of your licence in regards to your land use permits.
It is the same thing in regards to other activities regardless of how you resupply the boats. This is an issue. I think that by not raising it here and trying to find solutions to avoid those conflicts, we have to find solutions to these issues. Again, I would like to ask the Minister how soon do you see the possibility of coming up with another approach of how do you design or build the approaches for the ferries than continue to dump gravel into the rivers.
We do have a design. We do have a design that consists of a moveable concrete steel pad at the landings so that we can deal with the different fluctuating levels that we have been challenged with, and we will have that discussion with the people of that area, the Gwich’in people and the people of the communities of Tsiigehtchic and Fort McPherson and the leadership from that area as to how they view this. We wanted to be ready to have that in place for discussion with all the information by the next go round on the water licence. Thank you.
In regards to another issue, what we have been noticing over the last couple of years is that the water levels have been higher than usual. I don’t know if it is because of the amount of rainfall and that, but it is having an effect on the ferry operation on the Peel because it is a cable ferry and once the water rises to a certain level, you cannot operate. We notice that over especially this last summer, the water levels have been very high and because of public safety, they have had to shut down a few times because of high water but, more importantly, with the amount of driftwood and trees, public safety has to be taken into account. That is another issue that I think we should be considering in regards to that operation.
I would just like to know, has that come to your attention and, again, have we found ways of remedying the situation. Like I say, in the last number of years we have had a lot of flash floods because the rain in the mountains is heavier. We are getting more water coming down the Peel from the Richardson Mountains and we are seeing flash floods where it is coming. One day everything is okay and the next day the whole river is filled with driftwood and it is a concern. I would just like to know that in light of, we can call it climate change we can call it whatever, but we are seeing a difference in how the rivers are reacting to the whole ferry operations, especially on the Peel because it is a cable ferry.
We are trying to confirm whether the water levels are indeed higher than historic years. That is something we can’t confirm. We do agree, though, that high water causes concern on the Peel. It brings all kinds of debris, logs, things that are of safety concerns and we are looking at options. We have discussed a number of different ways that we can try to deal with it. I am not sure we have settled on one form or one solution to accommodate the challenges that high water brings, but we may be looking at a different landing system that may help. But as soon as we have something firm that we think will work and is proven, then we will certainly share that. Thank you.
Just to help the Minister out, probably one of your best options is a bridge on the Peel. That will be the best option right now. So will you consider that as an option in regards to the cable ferry on the Peel River?
