Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $19.87 million.
Agreed.
Let’s move along to page 13. This is Department of Transportation, capital investment expenditures, airports, not previously authorized. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again the combined services building, I noted the Minister said it was going to be completed and opened here shortly. Why are we carrying $1.026 million? What is that expenditure for? A million dollars?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll ask Minister Michael McLeod if he can provide that detail.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Minister Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I just answered that in my last response. I’ll respond again. The combined services building is substantially complete. We anticipate we’re going to have an official opening by sometime maybe in August. These dollars are to address some of the ongoing work and to rectify some of the deficiencies. The carry-over is required to meet our commitment. It’s not new money, it’s not additional money, it’s dollars that were identified that were not expended in last year’s budget. This is separate dollars not earmarked for the alternate energy system, it’s to complete the actual facility.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Any further questions? Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we can get a breakdown of exactly what that $1 million is. It’s not really clear. It’s a million dollar item but it seems like sure it’s to finish the building, but what has to be concluded? Is it interior work? Is it plumbing? Is it electrical? Is it paving the driveway? What is the million dollars expended for?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We don’t have that detail with us today, but if it would assist the Member, we can provide that to him subsequent to what we conclude here.
In regard to the situation we see in Norman Wells, I see there’s $473,000 in regard to conversion to alternative energy sources in Norman Wells. Is that to convert to diesel heat, or can you verify what exactly that is for? Is that for a backup generator at the airport? The $473,000, Norman Wells.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Kalgutkar.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to summarize the project in general, the revised budget for the project in 2010-2011 was $484,000. About $11,000 was spent. So we’re carrying over, as the Member has stated, $473,000. The reasoning for that is Public Works requested a delay in the work in order to give full consideration of the decisions regarding the fuel type that are currently pending with the town of Norman Wells. This project will be turned over to Public Works sometime in the new fiscal year.
In regard to the crisis situation that we find ourselves now in Norman Wells, is that decision going to be affected by the situation we find ourselves now with the closure of the Norman Wells pipeline and the possibility of cutting off gas completely to the community? Has this decision been made in the confines of that situation that we find ourselves today?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will refer the question to Minister Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Minister Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The decision to convert a number of our facilities in Norman Wells is part of the long-term plan to reduce some of the stress that is being placed on the community and the availability of natural gas. Our plan is to move away from natural gas to leave an adequate supply to the end of the four years that were committed to by Imperial Oil. Right now the decision is to convert to an alternate energy source. We’re trying to decide what is our best route.
As I indicated in responding to questions to Mr. Yakeleya, there isn’t a formal decision on what would be the best type of fuel to use, whether it would be propane in the community, which would require a huge capital investment, or to go into fuel, diesel fuel. The community’s pondering that question. We’re involved in the discussion. We’re looking at what is the best way to go. That’s why this did not move forward. Public Works wanted to get a better handle on what is the fuel type that we need to use, or alternate energy, or both. That’s what we are deciding. We’ll have that decision made and convert this facility over before the end of the summer.
I wasn’t really hearing the Minister’s response in regard to you mentioned diesel fuel, gas, but have you looked at alternative energy sources? We’ve just had a discussion about wood pellet heat systems. Have we looked at the possibility of biomass as the potential possibility of an energy source that you can look at?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
The request was made to defer this project for a little longer by Public Works. Now that Public Works has assumed responsibility for maintenance of these facilities and we’re also working hard to promote alternate energy, this project will now be turned over fairly soon to Public Works for management, and alternate energy would be something for consideration.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. We’re on page 13, Transportation, airports, not previously authorized, $7.663 million.
Agreed.
Highways, not previously authorized, $63.973 million. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to various bridge program, territorial, it’s $1.365 million. Could you give me a breakdown of exactly where these bridges are going to go and where they are going to be expended?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Kalgutkar.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, just to summarize the project again, the revised budget for 2010-2011 was $1.7 million. We spent $340,000 on it. As the Member stated, we’re carrying over $1.365 million. The carry-over is related to the Shale Creek Bridge Rehab Project, which is a work in progress for the 2011-2012 fiscal year. The contractor was late in starting the work and could not complete all the work before the winter. The remaining bridgework and earthworks will be completed in April-May of 2011. The guardrail and erosion and sediment control systems will be in place during the summer.
I’m just wondering where Shale Creek is.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you. I’ll have to refer that question to Minister Michael McLeod, who has intimate detail of the location of every one of these bridges.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To Minister McLeod for the intimate details.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shale Creek is located in Nahendeh outside of Fort Simpson. The contract is being done by a combination of companies under Fort Simpson Dene Council. The contract company is called Ti K’endeh and I believe it’s a Wrigley and Fort Simpson partnership arrangement.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Krutko.
As we heard earlier today from the Member for Nahendeh with regard to the closure of Highway No. 7, is this part of anything close to where the washout took place or where the road is closed because of the lack of bridges or bridgework in Highway No. 7?
This is a project that was initiated to move away from a culvert type of arrangement to a box bridge type facility. This would provide us with longer term reliability and better drainage as a result.
I notice at the bottom of the page you do have $3.8 million for bridges, culverts, structural rehabilitation. I’m just wondering, in light of the situation on Highway No. 7, is there a possibility that any of these dollars can be re-profiled to deal with that crisis we find on Highway No. 7 today?
The investment for Highway No. 7 is in place. It’s been approved in our capital. We have roughly $6 million, or around $5.5 million, earmarked for Highway No. 7.
Highway No. 7 has some serious challenges as the type of construction that was utilized by the federal government back when it was constructed and because of the place it is in its lifecycle, it does require significant investment. We have identified five areas that have really become deteriorated. We have assigned engineers and we have assigned staff and have contract crews focused on this area of work.
In all reality, the road has to be reconstructed. It needed a new design that has been undertaken. It needs proper drainage. When the road was constructed there was very little that was done in terms of proper drainage, aside from building ditches. It’s becoming very apparent that it needs investment.
The road to completely get under construction would probably cost about $200 million. Right now we are addressing portions of it and it will require continual investment for the long term. We are challenged, of course, as we commit to reconstruction of portions while other areas are failing. So it’s really becoming difficult to keep up with it and the next government is going to have to really look at addressing this in a serious way.
Again, I have to note that Highway No. 1, there were a bunch of upgrades and that taking place. That’s part of the carry-overs. I’m just wondering if there are any penalties associated with the contractors to conclude the contracts within a particular contract season, because it seems like a lot of these carry-overs are very large sums by way of the numbers of them. What contractual obligations do contractors have to conclude contracts within specific time frames in those contracts and are we sticking to them?
Yes, we do have contracts that state time frames and penalties. However, we do allow for consideration if there are unforeseen circumstances. A lot these companies are local companies. A lot of them are Aboriginal companies. A lot of them are development corporations. The dollar amount that Mr. Krutko has identified is a number of highways that have been packaged up. There is work here that is part of Highway No. 7. Most of these contracts were deferred for some reason or other, usually at no fault of the contractor.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Next on my list is Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask a question under highways. The very last one on page 13 refers to the Deh Cho Bridge. It’s a rather large amount of money: $25 million, almost $26 million, $25.88 million. I would like to ask why this amount of money is here. It was my understanding that we had approved the funding for the bridge and this seems like we’re asking for more money all over again. So if I could get an explanation.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Kalgutkar.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As Members recall, back in March of last year we appropriated the full amount of the bridge project into our books, the full $165 million. So that became a GNWT project. So this amount is just a carry-over of that amount of the work that needs to be completed during the 2011-12 fiscal year.
Thanks very much for the explanation. That’s all I have.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. We are on page 13, highways, not previously authorized, $63.973 million.
Agreed.
Let’s move along to page 14, Transportation continued, capital investment expenditures, marine, not previously authorized, $330,000.
