Mr. Chairman, we undertook an assessment study approximately a year and a half ago on all the airports to determine if the links were appropriate and the conditions. In the case of Lutselk’e, the runway is in good condition and it’s adequate to meet the needs of that community.
Thank you. I believe that is correct at this time. I’m thinking of the future. At some point I have a plan which includes dust suppression for the entire community, so maybe this department along with the municipality or the band, First Nations, when they become the municipal body they would look at chipsealing the entire community. I think there’s approximately four kilometres of road that covers all of Lutselk’e, possibly less than four kilometres. If they’re going to somehow increase the market viability of their community as far as market housing and other benefits to having good infrastructure goes, then while they’re in the community it would be an opportunity to gain some synergies and have that airport chipsealed in the future. I guess just to let the Minister know that that is one of the projects I will be looking at before this term is over.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. I didn’t hear a question. I have nobody else on my list. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can the Minister just explain the very complicated issue here of a point that he brought up in his discussions with Mr. Krutko regarding Transport Canada’s 2010 ruling on certain airports in the Northwest Territories? We have an issue in the Sahtu with this ruling, especially from an airline in our community that has partnerships with the two communities in my region. Can the Minister give an explanation on this very important rule and what this will mean in terms of the impacts on aircraft carriers’ business points of view?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The 2010 new guidelines that are coming into effect fairly quick in the next couple of years require all aircrafts of certain categories to be able to demonstrate that they can take off and land within certain distances on certain length runways. In this part of the country, in the Northwest Territories, we have two planes that are being challenged that the years that they were built and tested make it difficult for these companies to be able to provide that information because it’s been such a long time. The Beech aircraft and the Twin Otter are both planes that are used in the Territories and they are having difficulty proving they can land on certain length runways. The companies that have these planes in their fleets are requesting we extend the runways. We feel they need to do their due diligence to find the information and provide it to the federal government, which would allow them to land on the shorter runways. We’ve also embarked to try to help them by contacting the manufacturers or companies that are working with these aircrafts to do some of the actual testing or provide some of the information that they may have at their disposal to qualify that the planes can land on the shorter runways.
The 2010 runway ruling would be probably coming into effect 21 months from now. The communities of Fort Good Hope and Deline, along with their partner North-Wright Airways, have been asking this government here to see if they can extend the runways to the required length that would help them with their aircraft in the region. We do appreciate the additional runways that were extended in Fort Good Hope and Tulita up to, I think, 3,998 feet. I believe it’s there. We certainly appreciate that. However, because of the restrictions, they are saying that because of the restrictions in the 2010 ruling, that North-Wright, along with its partners, are saying they can only allow a certain number of passengers on aircraft with a certain amount of freight in order to fulfill the 2010 guidelines. They foresee that, in terms of expanding their business, they would desperately look favourably to see if they can get two specific strategic locations of runways in Fort Good Hope and Deline to extend the runways at least up to 4,500 to 5,000 feet. Now, if we don’t do that, then we are restricting the growth of an airline company with the Sahtu region. They want to go out and have an aircraft that can be used to carry additional passengers and freight. This came up in some of our discussions and the accident that happened in Fort Good Hope a couple years ago that contributes to something of a shorter runway with smaller aircraft. They want to avoid this. So I’m asking the Minister here, I know he had some discussions with the community of Deline about having something go forward on discussion. When the department goes back, can they reassess in discussion with Fort Good Hope and Deline and North-Wright to look at the additional request that they’re asking? The request is going to come to about $2 million for what’s being asked for. But I think in the long run it’s going to save everybody a lot of money and it’s going to mean safer aircraft in the Sahtu region.
We’ve had several discussions with the Member and the communities involved regarding the requested extension to the runway lengths to 4,500 feet. The situation is, as the 2010 ruling comes forward and gets closer, people in the southern jurisdictions are putting some of their aircraft out for sale as they would rather buy more efficient aircraft to operate. The Beech 1900 and other ones are becoming fairly cheap and that’s becoming very attractive through some of the communities and corporations in the North. They are wanting to purchase these aircraft and require us to upgrade the runway lengths. We are quite concerned about going any further than what we are extending them to already. This would require us not only to put the airport in a new category, it would require us to spend additional dollars to widen the current runway as well as extend it. We do not have the resources at this point to go to the next category for operations and maintenance. We do not have the capital dollars identified. So it’s not something we’re planning to do in the next while. We wanted to have further discussions with some of the communities to see what’s all involved to be able to measure what the capital costs would be and operations and maintenance. That offer wasn’t taken by the community that the Member represents. We’re still waiting for some response.
Certainly the Minister is correct in terms of some discussions that have happened with the communities and North-Wright regarding solutions on this issue. We feel in the Sahtu that we’re going to pay if we don’t have those runways extended to the length that we would see benefitting the communities.
The Minister has referred to additional costs and that if we go to a different length of runway it means a higher category. The people in the Sahtu already pay high prices for their airline tickets. They use the small aircraft in those dangerous mountains, with respect to the weather, the terrain that we have to fly in. We are being penalized because of this runway that is not being extended in the Sahtu region. I point again to the incident that happened in Fort Good Hope, because of too small an aircraft and the type of aircraft that was used.
I’m here and I could be corrected on this one here, if we had a longer runway with more suitable aircraft that could fly high over the mountains, we wouldn’t be in the situation we had in Fort Good Hope.
Again, if we do nothing by 2010, we are going to be restricted with this type of aircraft. We’re paying a high cost for travel in the Sahtu. There’s a limited amount of freight that’s going to come in there and we’re going to continue using smaller aircraft. I know that it costs additional dollars to extend this runway with the maintenance, but I think we are being penalized in the Sahtu region.
I may need to be corrected on this also, but I hear that outside aircraft coming into the Sahtu are not going to be penalized for landing on our runways. It is only the people in the Sahtu who are going to be penalized. That’s what I’m hearing. If the Minister needs to correct me, so be it, but that’s what I’m hearing right now. We desperately need to look at ways to extend our runways up to at least 5,000 in Fort Good Hope and Deline right now because of the possible amount of oil and gas activity that could be happening in the Sahtu region. It’s busy up there. It’s been quiet this year because of the other factors taking place with oil and gas exploration. I want to make that known to the Minister. I appreciate his willingness to sit with us and continue talking.
First of all, I have to correct the Member. The rules do not apply to only one specific jurisdiction. The rules for 2010 application will come forward and apply to all jurisdictions for all aircraft that are uncertified. That is the issue here, is there are two planes currently flying in the North that cannot demonstrate they can land on the runways we currently provide. Until they become certified, until they can find that information or justify it through testing, that won’t be allowed. We have taken the liberty and opportunity to write to companies that may be able to support us in providing that information. If that’s the case, if the information comes forward, then these aircraft can be certified. The aircraft carriers have not been willing to get some of this testing done for whatever reason.
All jurisdictions are involved and that’s the reason we are seeing a lot of these other planes coming on the market, such as the Beech 1900 that the communities want to buy. There are other aircraft that can meet the need. There is no intention of disadvantaging or targeting anyone. This is an issue we will be discussing and workshopping at our conference with the NATA in April. All the carriers will have an opportunity to have input and further discussion. For us to extend all the runways across the NWT would be a huge, expensive undertaking that we are not resourced to accommodate at this point.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Next on my list, Mr. Krutko.
I just have a question regarding the resurfacing of the airports. Are there plans not only for extension but also for resurfacing the airports and using different types of products for the resurfacing of airports? How often do you apply the different chemicals that you use to do the resurfacing? There are a lot more turbo prop aircraft flying into those airports and with the gravel airports most people do apply different products. I’d like to know how often or if the airport extensions will include the resurfacing of those airports or an appliance of some sort of chemical to protect the surface on those airports.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The provision for dust suppressants and other measures on the airports was approved in our capital budget in the fall and I can certainly provide that information again to the Members. I guess it’s important to clarify that chipseal can’t work in the communities. We don’t feel it’s a safe way to apply a coating to the runways. It either has to be pavement or EK-35. We’ve used it in some communities and we have a schedule to apply it to other communities to the cost of about $400,000 a year. We have a number of communities scheduled for this year. We have already done some across the Territories and it’s going to be a long-term investment for communities.
If we could get that information from the Minister it would be great. But the reason I’m asking is that in the case of Aklavik, they apply that EK-35 and it does work. If anything, if you’re not going to extend the airport, I think that at least having an airport that’s in pretty good shape, especially with these chemicals. I think it’s important that you do continue to reapply the chemical if you’re not going to extend those airports, because it does make a difference for the aircraft. You even notice it flying into these communities. The ones that have the chemical you can notice the difference to the condition of the airport. I’d like to also ask if you apply this to the airport in Fort McPherson. I know you do in Aklavik, but I’m not sure about Fort McPherson.
The EK-35 application has been working well in a number of communities. It has to be reapplied on a fairly regular basis. We are in the process of planning to do our third application at the Aklavik Airport. As to Fort McPherson, I don’t see it scheduled for the EK-35 along with the extension. I’d have to see if we could find that information and provide it to the Member, but I don’t have it listed as something that’s scheduled to be part of the extension.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I have nobody else on my list. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just wondering, we had a lot of predictions of melting permafrost causing caving and heaving and this sort of thing on airstrips and runways. I’m wondering if we’ve had any cases of that in the Northwest Territories in the last few years and, if so, are there any cases under management right now.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, we did have a certain amount of slumping in one community. The town of Hay River’s airport had some problems. I think that was two years ago and that’s been rectified. That’s the only one that’s reported the concern regarding what could be potential climate change issues. Thank you.
Are there studies that indicate the ones that are likely to have problems or have we been inventorying where the problems are likely to occur? Is there anything we can do beforehand to try and reduce the cost of that? Thank you.
We don’t have any airports right now that are reporting it. Now, as the Building Canada funding comes forward, there is a portion earmarked for research. As we indicated to the Member, this is an area that we need to look at along with some of the road assessments that need to be done. We are targeting some of the dollars that are coming forward from that pot of money to be used for the information that the Member is asking about.
Thanks for that information. Do we know how much of the…I think it is $250,000 slated for this year might be going to the airport assessment. Thank you.
We haven’t designed the assessment research that needs to be done for the airports and, therefore, don’t have a cost at this point. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I have nobody else on my list. We are on page 11-17, activity summary, airports, operations expenditure summary, $29 million.
Agreed.
We are on page 11-18, activity summary, airports, grants and contributions, contributions, $30,000.
Agreed.
We are on page 11-19 which is an information item. Airports, active positions. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the department if they can get the information based on the affirmative action numbers that are on this chart, P1s, P2s, P3s, and also if they can identify anybody with a disability or, basically, female management.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister McLeod.
This is a question that was requested on Thursday. We did indicate if we have the information we will provide it in written form to all the Members.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. We are on page 11-19. Are there any other questions? Information item, airports, active positions.
Agreed.
We are moving on to page 11-21, which is activity summary, highways. Mr. Krutko.
Just in regards to highways, as we have seen the weaving that we are starting to see because of permafrost and also we are starting to see a lot more sloping, sliding along the hillsides and also in regards to the effects it is having on our infrastructure. As a department, is there anything that is being done to find ways to mitigate some of these challenges? In the past we used to use permafrost. It worked for us by way of building on top of it and building layers over top. We are starting to see that with the temperature changes it is having an effect on world conditions, especially in the northern parts of the Territories. We are especially seeing it on the Dempster in regards to the challenges we are seeing by way of wash roads and whatnot. Are there studies or anything being done to try to mitigate this problem that we are seeing on our highways?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Michael McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, the Member raises a very good point. That has been a huge challenge for our department. Given the lifecycle of our many roads coming to mid-life, requirement of upgrades and given our deficit situation over the last while, we have seen some deficiencies occur as some of what should have been another layer of gravel placed on top so the quartz will come through. It causes some concern, along with climate change, of course.
Mr. Chairman, our staff is using new designs and new systems to build the roads. We are incorporating more geotech, more ways to prevent the permafrost from melting. We are building the roads wider, providing wider shoulders and things of that nature to ensure that our roads are not slumping or not causing concern. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, in regards to another aspect of the problems we are seeing especially on the Dempster Highway, the collapses that we have seen over the years in regards to the culverts that have collapsed, I think I asked for a report from the department. The majority of those culverts are almost 35 years old. They were put in place when the Dempster was built. They are in the process of having to replace a lot of these culverts. Again, because of the lifespan of these culverts, there is a risk associated with the public travelling that highway where we have had collapses. I would like to know exactly are there any plans to replace the remaining culverts on the Dempster Highway that haven’t been replaced yet, but, more importantly, ensuring that ongoing inspections are done and ensuring that the safety of the general travelling public is kept in mind because of the incidents that happened in the last couple of years with the culverts that have collapsed on the Dempster Highway.
That is an area for concern and we recognize as a result of some of the issues that have come forward regarding highways and given the lifecycle of our culverts. Also, as our roads age, our culverts are also in need of replacement. We have stepped up our inspections and will continue to have more inspections as we go forward. We also will be doing accelerated repairs to try to keep up with the demands that are being placed on the culverts, given their age. Thank you.
Another area I noticed that you talk about some 30 bridges that you also have to look at in regards to managing the project. I know that, in light of the Deh Cho Bridge, there are other bridges that still have to be put in place. One of the areas that I’m working on is the area of the Peel River Bridge, which was something that was supposed to be done when the Dempster Highway was built back in 1972. Yet, there is the possibility of doing that, but I think it is important that we do have to find a way to work in partnership.
I know that the Deh Cho Bridge is a model that we can build on. I think that it is something that we should consider and should be part of the Territorial Highway Strategy in regards to all the other ferry operations. There was talk about Liard, the Peel and the Mackenzie. I think that we have to look at other jurisdictions. You go on the Yukon. At almost every crossing, there is a bridge. I think that there is no reason that we can’t be trying to accomplish the same thing. I would just like to know where we are going in regards to the Highway Strategy, looking at the pricing, the ferry operations and the bridges at some point.
Mr. Chairman, we certainly have been trying to deal with the large amount of requirements for bridges in the Northwest Territories. We have actively worked on 37 new bridges that we’ll have in place over the last while. We have now a total of 77 bridges in the highway system. There are still five major bridges that need to be addressed at some point. It is a concern. The Liard River Bridge, the Ndulee crossing, the Bear River Bridge, the Peel River Bridge, as the Member has indicated, and also the Mackenzie crossing at Tsiigehtchic are all requirements that probably should have been addressed at the time of the construction of the road. We are hoping that some of these bridges will be addressed if there is ever a Mackenzie Highway put in place.
At the same time, we are looking at options, as the Member has indicated. A number of times in this House, there is a cost of not having a bridge. There is a cost in the communities and we are looking, as part of our strategies, to lower the cost of living in communities. How do we address that without having the actual dollars to construct a very expensive piece of infrastructure in the communities that the Member represents? We have been able to use new technology, new methods of building ice roads. That has allowed us to get across the river or across the ice bridge crossing quicker to probably opening it up a couple of weeks earlier, but overall there is still a need that needs to be addressed in the form of building for the long term a permanent piece of infrastructure and we will continue to work to that and continue looking at options. At this point we don’t have the resources to build a piece of infrastructure. The Member has done a lot of work with a number of companies and with the aboriginal government in his area to review the situation and we will be glad to continue working with him to see if there is a way forward on this. Thank you.
Again, going back to the original questions, I think that, as part of our Highway Strategy, we do have to have some sort of a policy in place to allow to look at things such as P3s in regards to sort of the Deh Cho Bridge or even the Mackenzie Highway. That has to be an option or an alternative. I know we don’t have the capital dollars to do all of these things. I think that we have to find a way to finance it, knowing that we don’t have tens of millions of dollars. We need to do all these things, but I think we do have to look at alternative ways of financing projects.
I was in Manitoba with other Members of the House where we drove on a highway which was built on behalf of the hydro company -- some 50 kilometres, which was surprising. It was $25 million, which up here is about $1 million a kilometre. I think that it is something that we have to look at again. It was a P3. I think we have to find ways of delivering on these things, but, more importantly, do it within sight of the existing government policies and the financial abilities of this government to deliver on those things. I think also it has to be part of the long-term strategy of the government. I would just like to know, knowing that we have the Deh Cho Bridge project in place -- it is one of the options that we have looked at -- how do we implement that through the NWT Highway Strategy to eventually replace ferry operations with permanent bridges?
Mr. Chairman, there is, I guess, the need to engage the federal government on such a project. We are watching them with great interest to see where the P3 office will end up. We have not seen any projects funded through this program. They have indicated that they still need to set up their board and that has been moving very slowly. Failing that, we would need the federal government to step up and provide the necessary resources.
As I mentioned, there has been some interesting developments over the last while on the Peel River Bridge and we will keep working with the Member on it. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just wondering where we are at on winter roads. I was just crunching the numbers, $3.791 million this year for 1,400 kilometres, about $2,660 per kilometre. That sounds like a pretty reasonable deal to me, even though we are up possibly 45 percent from a couple of years ago on the cost of winter roads. Has the life of the winter roads…I know the duration is variable from year to year, but has the technology managed to keep up with that so far or is the life of the winter roads still roughly the same?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Minister.
Mr. Chairman, we have done a number of things over the last while to try to enhance the Winter Road Program, including signs for safety reasons. We have tried to step up the highway patrols on the winter road system. We have also tried to incorporate new technology into building the roads and increase our maintenance cycles. We have requested some of the industry people that were utilizing certain portions of the road to invest. We have managed to build quite a few bridges over the last while that have extended the season. The winter road system is still usually dictated by weather. We have done a lot of work, but it is quite far from being an all-season road, that is for sure.
Is there a point where the cost goes up to where it is worth putting in an all-season road or some other means of transportation? Does the department do that sort of analysis? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think we do some costing in terms of comparison of what it would cost to try to build an all-season road. We have taken some measures only because we have been assisted by the federal government. For example, on the Tlicho winter road, we will be moving forward to take what is now an ice road or a road built over mostly lakes and stream crossings, put it on land and make a winter road that is a little safer than the current one utilized. Mr. Chairman, it is quite difficult to look at the potential of building an all-season road without the federal government’s involvement, because it is a very costly undertaking. Thank you.
