Thank you, Minister Ramsay. We will start with general comments on the Department of Transportation. Any general comments on the Department of Transportation? Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to start my conversation possibly where I left off earlier today in my Member’s statement. Really, when it was brought forward the first time to the public’s light, was the $299 million cost estimate that was provided to the federal government from this department. Now, in reading the opening comments of the Minister, I was struck back that this number is now being carried forward as a number for negotiations. We’ve heard earlier that the Minister is not closing or doing any deals. Anything that we were talking outside of this $299 million is deemed hypothetical, which I do have a concern with that comment.
I guess the roundabout is the fact that this is going to be, by and large, probably the second or third largest expenditure on our public purse, one in which, I think, the public needs to have an active voice, not only at the end stage of negotiations but during the stage of negotiations. I think it’s very clear to the public that we are venturing down a pathway to which the public has had very little information. The Members here have had, and I do appreciate the fact the Minister has been upfront and has brought some information, and I say some, not all information. But the general public, to this day, is still seeking that information.
Given the fact that this is an open process, this budget process is open, I find it fairly interesting that the Minister would actually include this information in his opening address, yet has not provided any details or level of detail to which I believe that the public is deserving of. For that, I would ask, in the Minister’s comments, to include why. Why are we not sharing this information? Why are we not bringing the public into the light? Why are we not bringing the public up to speed in terms of, as we indicated earlier, the royalties for the granular component? What about the 15 percent of the road that is not accommodated within the cost estimate? What if this 15 percent will encompass barriers or extremely high levels of cost within the completion of the road? We don’t know that, and I don’t think any of the Members here know that as well.
Also, the issue of the risk matrix, and as a component of a matter of point, this was deemed by the Auditor General of Canada during her deliberations on the Deh Cho Bridge as being a very weak project and a very weak process of this government. Our job as Members is to clearly put a lens on making improvements, nothing more. We want to see this project go forward as any other project in the Northwest Territories. We’re just accountable for the public purse, and I think the questions that we’re asking are very fair and reasonable in design. I think we need to also get a response back from the Minister that is equally fair and reasonable. Some of the responses that were received are less than I consider appropriate and are obviously causing frustrations amongst the Members here.
I do applaud the general aspect of the Department of Transportation and their main estimates. We are seeing that they are working within their means, but those means also include the fact that we have many other roads of infrastructure that are going to have to be dealt with in the years to come, and really, there’s a lot of concern out there. I know this is not a capital budget; this is an operations budget. I’ll leave it at that. I will have questions for detail as we go from page to page, but I really strongly encourage the Minister to not heed to the political Mackenzie two-step that goes with a project of this magnitude and to cooperate fully with the Members, cooperate fully with the public, and let’s just share the information. That’s all we’re asking. Share what we’ve got today. Let’s not wait to hear back from the feds. Let’s not wait until we’ve got to a make a five-minute decision on a $300 million project. Let the public be aware. That’s all I’m asking. Thank you.
General comments. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a couple of comments here. I’ll start where Mr. Dolynny left off with the Mackenzie Valley Highway, the road from Inuvik to Tuk. I, too, am concerned. I appreciate that the Minister has advised that we haven’t got a decision yet, but we also don’t yet know the total cost of the project. Sometimes I feel that we are heading pell-mell down a road without considering what’s at the end of the road when we get there, and I just want to say that I am extremely cautious about this project. Once bitten, twice shy. And the Deh Cho Bridge, having gone through the Deh Cho Bridge Project, it certainly puts a different spin and view on what I see in terms of projects and the large costs involved, so I will be exercising caution. I appreciate no decision has been made, but I encourage the department to recognize that there are a lot of unanswered questions on the part of Members and I think probably on the part of the department itself. Let’s just make sure we know what we’re getting ourselves into.
The Minister talked about a net decrease in his opening comments, a net decrease of $3.4 million to the budget from the previous year’s budget. That sounds great. There is a reduction in some of the costs with taking the ferry out of service and so on, and not having an ice road to build across the river anymore. I think we have to remember that we are reducing the Transportation budget, but we are increasing the budget in Finance by $8 million to deal with the interest on the Deh Cho Bridge loans. Now that the bridge is open and operating, we are starting to pay interest on those loans that we have. So we can’t lose sight of the fact that one department has gone down but another one has gone up significantly.
I had a bit of a concern with the fee increases. I’m sort of struggling with that. The Minister mentioned that adjustments to bring fees up to date, with the majority of fee increases ranging from 15 to 20 percent. I can appreciate that we probably were a little behind with our fee increases. We probably haven’t brought them up to date for a number of years, but I saw the 15 and 20 percent and thought, as a consumer, I’m not all that happy to have an increase of 15 to 20 percent. Even 5 percent these days is enough, thank you very much. From what I understand, some increases may be as high as 30 percent. I certainly hope the department will, in the future, manage to keep fees closer to sort of I guess annual increments, if that’s necessary, or say every two years or so, so that we’re not seeing a big, healthy dose of increased fees at any one time.
The Minister mentioned the opening of the Deh Cho Bridge. I was lucky enough to be able to be there that day. Although it was extremely cold, it was a really exciting day. I know I shared the Minister’s excitement. It certainly was an historic event for me and I truly enjoyed the opportunity to be part of it. So thanks to the Minister and the department for that. Also, thank you for actually getting the bridge open. That was great. It was a long time coming, but it was really good that it was finally done.
The Minister talked a lot about improving economic development opportunities in his opening remarks. He talked about the need for transportation infrastructure, and I agree. We can’t have mines without roads to service those mines, but I am a little struck by the fact that we’re not talking at all about the environment and sustaining the environment, and tempering our push for economic opportunities in transportation infrastructure with making sure that we are considering the environment at the same time. This government, in my mind, has a bit too much focus and emphasis on economic opportunities, to the detriment of our environment and our land and water. I put that forward as just a mention.
I did forget to mention that Mr. Bromley, unfortunately, isn’t feeling well, but he asked me to bring forward this particular concern of his. I believe it’s on the revenue page in the budget where we have, according to the Minister’s comments, increased our fees, but we don’t see a corresponding increase in revenue. I look at road licensing and safety fees and they’ve gone down to $144,000 from $589,000 in 2012-13. Those two statements, the numbers in the book and the statement by the Minister don’t jive, so he and I would appreciate an explanation when we get to that point. Even if we look at total revenue, we’ve gone from $9.6 million to $12.9 million, which is about $3.3 million. We are increasing our revenue through tolls of $4 million, I think was in the Minister’s opening comments. Again, it doesn’t really jive if we are increasing our licensing and other fees and we’re not really increasing our revenue from what the numbers say.
That’s all I had, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Are there any further general comments on the Department of Transportation?
Detail.
Okay, thank you. I guess I should let the Minister respond. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Members’ comments on our budget. It’s important for us to hear Members’ concerns.
I know we had a good discussion today about the Inuvik-Tuk highway during question period. I’m sure there will be more questions as we get into some of the detail. Although there is no money per se in the budget this year for the Inuvik-Tuk highway, I would be more than happy, under the highways section, to answer any questions Members may have. It would be very interesting and maybe I’ll just put this out there. Any questions, I am very curious to know what we haven’t told Members, what we haven’t come forward with during the briefing that we had with Members. If Members have any questions, we would be more than happy to answer them. I think we need to ensure that Members aren’t left with the feeling that we’re not telling them something. I’d like to know that if there’s something we’re not telling them about the Inuvik-Tuk highway, what exactly is it? We’ll get you the answer. There are a lot of unknowns. If those questions point to something that is an unknown, we’ll tell you that it’s unknown. But I think we’ve been forthcoming, we’ve been upfront with Members and we will continue to be upfront with Members.
This is a big project. It’s building this territory. It’s connecting Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk, a road coast to coast to coast. It’s a big, big project. It’s something that we need to make sure that we get it right. We need to also ensure that we are answering every question that Members have. We certainly don’t want any Member feeling like we are doing things behind their back or behind closed doors. That’s not the case. Once we get the agreements and approvals from the federal government and we get the deal put together, the public will know what exactly we’re proposing and, at the end of the day, that will be discussed on the floor of this House. Decisions will be made whether or not to move the project forward. Members will have every opportunity to ask questions about the project and, at the end of the day, whether they support the project and however it ends up falling out, we piece it together, that’s how that will work. Again, I look forward to questions. We’re here to answer questions, so I look forward to that.
I know there are some other issues that came up. We’ll get to those through the detail. I’m very thankful for MLA Bisaro mentioning the Deh Cho Bridge. That was a big day for us. We are glad that she and some other Members could be there on the big day when we cut the ribbon on the Deh Cho Bridge, got it into service and are collecting tolls on that key piece of infrastructure here in the Northwest Territories. With that, I’ll look forward to the questions as we get into detail. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. I’ll ask Members if they would pass by page 11-7. We will return to that at the end of the consideration of the Department of Transportation. So then on to page 11-8, Transportation, information item, infrastructure investment summary. Agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you. Page 11-9, Transportation, revenue summary, information item. Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Madam Chair. If I could ask for an explanation of the referencing fees for licences, fees, licences and permits – the toll permits I understand – and registrations. Registrations have gone up but fees particularly, road licensing and safety fees have gone way down and the total revenue has only increased. It hasn’t increased the $4 million that we are gaining in our tolls. If I can get an explanation of these revenue numbers. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Ramsay.
Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks to the Member for the question. There was a lot of juggling around with our fees, and for a detailed response, probably best to answer that would be Deputy Minister Neudorf.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There were four different adjustments that we made to our fees this year that were in the general section. First is that we took the service fees, so the $12 typical fee when you go and register your vehicle, we are going to add that $12 fee. Instead of it being separate, it’s going to be added to the base amount of the registration, so the net cost is going to be the same but we aren’t going to be specifically charging that service fee. We moved some of the revenue that was reported underneath that line item, road licensing and safety fees, into the applicable category.
We also, as the Member indicated before, made a number of adjustments to our revenue to catch it up to the current market rates. In a number of cases those fees hadn’t changed for quite a number of years so the increases were a little higher. Some averaged, I think, in the 15 to 20 percent range. That total revenue included here is $529,000 in various categories. Some in the airport landing fees and some in the licensing and safety fees.
The Deh Cho Bridge toll revenues are there, $4.01 million. Those were already added to the 2012-2013 revised mains. We’re projecting to get $1.3 million in this fiscal year. After the bridge came into service November 30th then the final adjustment was just to reflect actuals.
In airport landing and other fees in particular, our projections from last year were a little bit too optimistic and, in fact, to meet actuals we adjusted it down by about $300,000.
Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to the DM for that explanation. I think I totally understand. I heard him say that we had an increase of about $529,000 through the fees and licensing and so on, the revenue from those. Then we increased our toll permits about $3 million, it looks like, $2.7 million. I guess the numbers do add up. It’s about $3 million difference in revenue in total. Okay. Never mind. I talked myself out of my question.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Glad we could help you out with that. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. In the title-ship of corporate services, I know it encompasses a lot of operation expenditures so I want to first talk about the remaining money that could still not be spent. This money was from the Building Canada Plan, which I believe ceased in 2011. I know there are residual monies that are usually put into stasis or basically in a holding pattern.
Can the Minister indicate if all the money under the previous federal Building Canada Plan has been spent or are there still projects outstanding, tied or attached to that resource money?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There is still some of that Building Canada money in the 2013-2014 Capital Plan as well as some research and development money. If the Member wants specifics, we could provide him with specifics.
We’ll take the Minister up on his offer and ask him to give Members an update as to what is left in spending in that money and what is pending for projects.
On a different subject under the same topic, the issue of regulatory changes in transportation and the impacts that they could have on the operations within the NWT, can the Minister indicate those federal changes that are being discussed and that were discussed, how is that impacting our operations in the NWT to meet those federal requirements?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in terms of the Building Canada Plan, in 2013-2014 our capital plan still has three specific projects that have BCP capital funding: the Highway No. 4 reconstruction; the Highway No. 1, 187 to 411; and the Highway No. 8 reconstruction. Three capital projects that would have been approved in the fall capital plan.
Then we also have about $250,000 that would be for BCP R and D that would be allocated next year. In terms of the regulatory changes and the impact, the place that it’s being felt the most is in our airports division where we need to operate our airports in accordance with Transport Canada regulations. There have been a few changes over the last three or five years or so that we’ve been implementing. By far the biggest one would be the implementation of safety management systems. We’re actually in year four of four, so we are nearing the end and getting all of our documents and procedures in place.
We have come forward with two forced-growth items for that in the past. One in the past where we got some extra positions and funding to meet the various requirements there, then there’s forced growth as part of the budget here that brings three additional positions into DOT, one in Inuvik Airport, one in Fort Simpson Airport, both to have help with the operations, and meet the extra requirements for reporting and conducting emergency exercises and wildlife management plans, and then another in Yellowknife here to deal with the extra technical documentation required as part of safety management systems.
The other two areas that have seen significant changes is, first, on emergency response planning where we now have to go into communities that are with certified airports on a regular basis, once a year, and conduct a live exercise and do planning for that. It takes a considerable amount of planning to conduct those exercises, particularly in our smaller communities. It is, of course, a benefit to do that, a benefit for DOT to potentially deal with an emergency in an airport, but also a benefit to communities because they can learn the process to go through an emergency exercise and how to deal with those. We do work closely with the RCMP, with Health, and with MACA in planning those.
In terms of other regulatory changes, I think the federal government changes with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, the Navigable Waters Act and the Fisheries Act, where, from a DOT perspective, we think that they do go a long way to simplify the rules to make them clearer and to make our job and the requirements to meet those various regulatory requirements much more straightforward to fulfill.
I appreciate Mr. Neudorf’s response to that here. In the reply to the question I believe there were about four airports that were mentioned in terms of improvements in the safety requirements. I did hear that this is year four of five of an implementation program. Can we get more detail on how many airports are still not meeting the so-called federal requirements of the total amount of airports that we have under our guidance?
All of our airports meet existing Transport Canada requirements. All of them are safe. Many of the airports would have some deviations to them so that there are specific requirements or things that would require a deviation from what would be ideal from a Transport Canada regulatory perspective. They are all safe. They do all meet regulatory requirements. Our airports that have regular scheduled service into them by carriers are all certified airports. We have to go through a process to get them certified. Transport Canada provides that so that carriers can operate on a scheduled basis into the program.
The requirements to operate the airports to ensure certification to meet the emergency response requirements have been changing over the last few years, and I mentioned that we’re in year four of four of safety management system implementations. We’re nearing the end of that. We have been able to meet all of those requirements. It has taken some additional personnel and additional budget adjustments to do it, but we are able to meet all of the Transport Canada requirements.
I’m getting the fact that our airports are meeting all federal regulatory requirements and that there’s just some safety management systems or emergency response planning left to be fulfilled. If I am indeed in error, I would ask the Minister or deputy minister to correct me. That said, can the Minister or department indicate to me, the emergency response planning that happens at airport or airport authorities, how close does that mimic or work with any of the emergency community plans that would be involved with those communities that do have airport or airport authorities? Are we talking the same document or a separate document?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There would be separate documents but we certainly rely on community emergency plans and anything we do at airports in communities.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Minister Dolynny. I’m sorry. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re hoping for that one day. Just so I’m very clear, I have to be perfectly crystal clear here that we still have some community emergency action plans at airport authority level that still need to be implemented. Can I just get an inventory of those communities that have yet to achieve that?
That’s an ongoing opportunity for us. Every year we have to go through emergency planning exercises around the Northwest Territories. That is ongoing.
Can I get maybe an indication, is this an annual accreditation that an airport authority has to maintain, or once your accredited do you have a two-, three-, or five-year life cycle before you are up for an accreditation again?
Most would be a year but it’s a cycle where you would have to go through the accreditation. Yes, most cases are on an annual basis.
If we can maybe get an indication of those airport authorities that have failed or have not met the regulatory requirements that are governed by the federal statutes, if we can get a list of those.
We’re complying with regulations that are in place and currently there would be no airports that didn’t meet them. We’re almost finished the SMS. There would be no airports that didn’t meet the requirements.
Page 11-9, Transportation, information item, revenue summary.
Agreed.
Page 11-10, Transportation, information item, active position summary.
Agreed.
Page 11-13, Transportation, activity summary, corporate services, operations expenditure summary, $10.326 million.
Agreed.
Page 11-14, Transportation, information item, corporate services, active positions.
Agreed.
Page 11-17, Transportation, activity summary, airports, operations expenditure summary, $29.704 million. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do appreciate the Minister and deputy minister’s answer earlier. Keeping on the topic of airports, if we could maybe get a brief update as to the Public Airports Act. This has to do with airport parking or use of parking or parking issues. Has this been problematic for the Department of Transportation to implement this act?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Airports Act itself is working fine. The one specific issue that we did have is around parking and enforcement of parking. We have been able to change our enforcement practices to be able to live within the act. Somewhere on our agenda is to actually come back and update the act, but really the only issue for now is the parking enforcement and we have been able to find a way to make it work. It’s not high on the priority list.
Maybe I could get a bit more of an explanation from the deputy minister or the Minister. In his reply is “making this work.” Can he maybe elaborate on that last comment?
