Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I would like to thank the Members that did speak in support of the motion. Again, this motion is directed to the small communities. I think that this issue has been around since the 14th Assembly. I know that special committee, that first small communities, filed a report and this was one of the recommendations which instrumented they put in place main street chipseal program for small communities and which it only served basically in one Legislature, which was the 15th Assembly. I think because of it only having to take place in one Assembly, other communities are saying that this issue is a health issue. It is not a question about …and also having the capacity to deliver this program in a lot of these smaller communities. The small communities do not have the capacity to basically hire engineers, start doing the evaluation in regards to the survey that has to take place, looking at the gravel needs, looking at the equipment that you have to bring in to do this thing. One project you are talking about a community’s $1.6 million. I think that for that kind of money for small communities, sure, they get a little bit of gas tax money, but you are only talking about $150,000 if not less.
With the motion, it does direct the Department of Transportation and MACA to find a way to deliver a program that will meet the unique challenges in small communities dealing with dust control. Again, I will be requesting a recorded vote on this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Krutko, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Ramsay, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Jacobson, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, all those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.
Mr. Lafferty; Ms. Lee; Mr. Miltenberger; Mr. Roland; Mr. McLeod, Deh Cho; Mr. McLeod, Inuvik Twin Lakes; Mr. McLeod, Yellowknife South.
The results of the recorded vote on the motion: nine in favour, seven abstained. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Thank you, committee. We are moving on to page 11-21, activity summary, highways, operations expenditure summary, $47.859 million.
Agreed.
Page 11-22, information item, highways, active positions.
Agreed.
Page 11-25, activity summary. Mr. Krutko.
Are we under marine?
I will just confirm that we are on activity summary, marine, operations expenditure summary, $7.928 million. That is page 11-25. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In this department item we talk about marines for boats and whatnot, but a lot of our communities still depend on large traffic such as NTCL to resupply a lot of our communities. I raised this question in the House before in regards to NTCL being able to tie up their barges and unload freight and that in the community of Aklavik. They do have a little marine docking system but it is mostly for small boats. I was talking with the larger vessels like NTCL, because they do have a problem loading and unloading. It all depends on the water levels. There is no real docking facility for these vessels. I know that there have been these built up and down the valley for NTCL to load and unload a lot of their cargo. I know I have raised this in the House I believe last fall. I was told there was going to be something done, but apparently there was a miscommunication. I think they were talking about the little marine docking system for small boats and vessels. I am talking about large vessels by way of NTCL to be able to load and unload cargo in regards to the resupply of the barges. Again, I would like to ask the Minister, what does it take for a community such as Aklavik to be able to have the proper docking facilities available for large vessels in that community?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Michael McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, this is a program that is the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. They are responsible for maintaining and improving the marine facilities in communities across the Northwest Territories and also including Nunavut. I believe in 2003 there was some money provided through the DFO, a total of $450,000 to provide docks along the Aklavik shoreline to support the local boaters. There has been use of this facility by the carriers that come to the community. We have had discussions with both the DFO and NTCL. They seem to think it is adequate. There are some dollars provided each year for general maintenance. We are not aware of a permanent facility for that community. We certainly can have that discussion with Canada to see whether further marine facility requirements are needed in that community. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is needed. When basically there is a risk of moving goods and services on and off a vessel because you don’t have the proper docking facilities, I think that is something that has to be addressed. I think a lot of our communities basically don’t have year-round access and do depend on these barge resupplies that they do have to have the proper facilities. Again, I would just like to stress to the Minister if he can see if there is a possible way that we can design such a facility or even improve what is there already so that they are able to properly dock these vessels when they go into these communities.
We certainly would agree to provide some support for the community along with ourselves to have that discussion with the DFO. My understanding of the situation is that it is a difficult facility to construct. However, we also recognize that Canada has put some dollars in their federal budget that may be accessible. We will commit to working with the community and follow it up to see what is possible and keep the Member informed.
Mr. Chairman, in to the ferry crossings, I know the Minister is aware the letters that he has received from a family in Tsiigehtchic who basically has fished there. The family had that area and fished on that side of the Mackenzie River for years, long before the highway was even there. Now they are being encroached on by the ferry landings, which has moved towards the individual’s harvesting area where they set their nets and that. I know there was a letter sent to you as Minister. I already spoke to you about this matter. Again, I think this government should do everything it can to avoid these conflicts between people’s traditional harvesting areas and where we launch our ferries. I don’t know why this government does not use the ferry approach that they have used for the last 15 years, where they used to use the same approach year after year. For some reason, the last two years they have moved the approach more towards the south side and encroaching on this individual’s campsite. Would the Minister seriously consider moving back to the original ferry launch area where it came straight down the hill right onto the ferry without having to encroach on this individual’s harvesting area? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, the Member did raise the issue. I think we had received a letter from the individual. We will see how we can accommodate the request so that the ferry system can still operate and we are not in a situation where we are disturbing anybody else. We will commit to following that up. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, also another issue that has come up in regards to renewable resource council meetings at the Gwich’in assemblies is the amount of gravel that this government puts into the rivers on the Mackenzie and the Peel. I believe the Mackenzie is almost 1,600 cubic metres a year. The Peel is somewhere around 1,200. I think that if you have been doing that for the last 30 years, that is a heck of a lot of gravel that you have put into the river system. The concern is what effect it has on the aquatic life by way of fish spawning areas. The question they are asking is why is Fisheries and Oceans allowing the Government of the Northwest Territories to dispose of gravel into a river system and not saying or doing anything about it? Under the Fisheries Act, anybody, regardless of who you are, who throws anything into a river system or a lake system has to abide by the Fisheries Act. I think for myself I have raised this issue before and I think it’s something that this government has to seriously consider.
In regards to the residents of Fort McPherson, they’ve raised the issue that from eight miles going south down the Peel to the Mackenzie that there’s more sandbars than they’ve ever seen before and they say it’s in direct correlation between the approaches at the eight-mile ferry landing and it has been having an effect in regards to the flow of the river by restricting the flow of the river by moving the approaches farther and farther out into the river. It’s affecting the downstream by way of these sandbars that are now in places where they’ve never been before. I think that has to be seriously looked at too.
I’d just like to ask the Minister if he would seriously consider looking at those by way of conducting a study of some sort and see if there is a direct correlation between that and the effects that people are seeing on the Mackenzie and the Peel.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. A number of questions there. Mr. Chairman, I think the Member would agree that the rationale for using gravel is as a result of the nature of the landing. The type of soil that’s in that area requires us to use gravel to stabilize the landings. There was a study done in 2001 that looked at the situation and it deemed that the process was adequate. The approaches continue to be utilized because, first of all, it’s cost effective.
Mr. Chairman, we also operate under a water licence that has strict criteria to follow and we are meeting the guidelines.
Mr. Chairman, I also believe that I had responded to the Member at a different opportunity, during question period, to make the commitment that the department would look at the situation this summer as we move forward, and look at the types of options that could be incorporated for this landing. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Colleagues, we’re on page 11-25, activity summary, marine, operations expenditure. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can the Minister tell me when their water licence is up so that maybe we can intervene by way of the application?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe I have that information in front of me. I’d have to commit to provide it to the Member.
Mr. Chair, the residents I represent feel this is a concern and I think if it means having to file an intervention and a public hearing on this matter, I think that might be the way we should go. But I think that the government should seriously consider looking at some sort of permanent structures so you don’t have to continue to put gravel into the river systems -- you have permanent structures in regard to Fort Providence -- and also that you are able to look at other means of technology that’s out there today. So I’d just like to know, is that an option that has been considered.
Again, if the Minister could get back to me in regards to when that licence is going to be up for renewal, so that they can consider a possible public hearing by way of a regulatory review of this issue.
The process for a water licence is open for Members or individuals or the general public to intervene. It’s issued by the Gwich’in Water Board. My understanding is it’s for 10 years, I just don’t have an expiry date.
Mr. Chairman, I commit before and I’ll commit again, we’ll look at the different options. Right now we do not have a solution other than providing or using gravel as a stabilizer for that landing. There may be other things. We are not aware of it. We’ll do as the Member’s requested and look at the different options.
The method that Fort Providence is using for a ramp is not something that we are convinced is a solution. The water levels are too volatile, but there may be other things that we can come up with that will not require us to use as much gravel. Thank you.
I think the perfect solution would be a bridge.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. I didn’t hear a question there, unless the Minister would like to offer any remarks.
Mr. Chairman, the Member is correct. Any time we have a river crossing or a stream crossing, the perfect solution is a bridge.
Ohhh.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Colleagues, we’re on page 11-25, activity summary, marine, operations expenditure summary, $7.928 million. Agreed?
Agreed.
Page 11-26, information item, marine, active positions. Mr. Krutko.
Again I’d just like a breakdown by way of P1s, P2s, P3s, and I’d like to note that there has been one position dropped in the Inuvik region and I’d like to know what’s the status of that individual, who comes from my riding, and is he going to receive any severance or competition. This person worked for the government I believe for over 25 years. So I’d just like to know what type of arrangement has been worked out with this individual who has been fired, in another sense of the word.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, the commitment for the detail of information that the Member’s requesting has been committed to. We’ll provide that in written form. Mr. Chairman, there has been one reduction in the Member’s riding. That person will be treated fairly and will be compensated as per our layoff policy. I believe that individual is already working at other employment.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Colleagues, we’re on page 11-26, information item, marine, active positions. Agreed?
Agreed.
Page 11-29, activity summary, community marine infrastructure, operations expenditure summary, $11,000.
Agreed.
Page 11-30, activity summary, community marine infrastructure, grants and contributions, contributions. Any questions? Mr. Krutko.
The Minister mentioned that there’s a possibility of getting federal dollars for marine operations. Is there any idea of how much money we’re talking about from the federal government?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister McLeod.
We’ll have that in all the detail.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Every year the department obtains, through a vote 4/5 arrangement, for $450,000 a year from Canadian Coastguard, DFO. That’s to maintain the various resupply facilities in the NWT. If money allows, then we do some upgrading as well.
The Minister had previously pointed out that the federal government did talk in their recent announced budget about $200 million for additional marine infrastructure. We understand it’s through harbours, and that means it’s mostly focussed on commercial fishing activities, but we are following up on the details to see what the opportunities are for the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Mr. Krutko.
Again I have to agree with Mr. Neudorf, because I did read the parliamentary budget address and it did stipulate the Northwest Territories and Nunavut by way of harbour development. I think that because we’re just as unique as they are, I think that for coastal communities, it works there. But being Aklavik is only 50 kilometres from the coast, so I think it’s something that should be considered for those communities that are either along the coastline and also for communities that require this type of infrastructure.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister McLeod.
