Thank you, Mr. Chair. The source of the funding is the surplus funding that’s available from the Whati transmission line project that was approved under ITI. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Kalgutkar. Mr. Bromley.
I understand that that project is not going forward and thus the money is freed up. I’m concerned about that.
I’d like to ask how many project feasibility studies have we now concluded in Whati over the last decade without ever embarking on a single project.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t have that detail in front of me. I’m not familiar with the number, but I am happy to get the department to pull that information together and provide it to committee.
I appreciate that. I suspect the next question might be the same response. How many millions of dollars have we now spent on Whati project feasibility studies without ever having actually done a project there? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, we will include that information in the information I’ve already committed to providing the committee.
Thank you. Why did the Whati transmission line project not go forward? Why are we at this impasse here?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the original costing of the Whati line was supposed to come in, I think it was around $22 million and it has now come in at $30 million. So we need a subsidy, we’re required to do that and the reason for that is that the original anticipation was to have a much smaller line, but the terrain proved too challenging. It required a higher voltage line, which required more substantive towers to bring that in. So really we’re looking at an increase of $12 million to $30 million and the subsidy to make ratepayers whole on that project is now up to $20 million. So the decision was that it was not really economical to proceed with that project. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Mr. Bromley.
Thanks to the deputy minister for that. My understanding was the latest was $12 million and came in at $30 million, but either way obviously a substantial increase, but on the other hand there is a significant demand for both heat and power in that community to which we subsidize probably over $1 million per year, and there’s also a mine being proposed not far from the community, the NICO Mine, Fortune Minerals. I think I’m just not convinced that we are doing the strategic thinking we need to do to enable these projects to actually go forward beyond feasibility studies. Partly I understand these are very steep, upfront capital costs and we need to wrestle with that and that requires fiscal management that enables us to take those projects on, and my feeling on that I think is clear. I don’t think we’ve done that. We’ve been investing in very large, very expensive projects way beyond our affordability with the hopes that they’re going to be economic when here we have projects that mean something to the people in their homes, businesses, at their small business sites and are struggling with the cost of living. Meanwhile we are pouring literally $100 million into subsidizing these things when we could actually address them. These are long-term projects. Hydro is 50 to 100 year horizons and so on.
So I am very distressed and I wanted to take this opportunity to say that we need to get on top of this and start. When we do these feasibility studies, we need to make sure that the part of a strategic approach to get some resolutions in place for what our people are facing in their homes. So, thank you. I believe that’s all the questions I have on this page.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the Member’s comments and I am listening and I know my colleagues are listening as well. The additional cost would have to be borne by somebody, which could obviously affect the ratepayers, but I understand what the Member is telling us. We do know that if NICO does go ahead there may be an opportunity to revisit this as we’ll have a larger market for power.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you. I appreciate that comment from the Minister. I’m wondering: how proactive are we right now at working with Fortune Minerals, NICO Mine to help them ensure that the project goes forward based on renewable energy? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do believe that NICO has been working with Northwest Territories Power Corporation on looking at options to provide power to the mine, which would include hydro obviously in conjunction with what we just discussed for that purpose. Thank you.
I understand that we have very little extra on the Snare power line. So is that with development of Whati hydro power potential? Thank you.
That’s correct.
Thanks for that. I guess I’m hoping that we’ll be kept apprised of how that’s going and have the opportunity to contribute to those discussions. That’s all I have. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Committee, Education, Culture and Employment, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $2.803 million.
Agreed.
Agreed. Department of Transportation, capital infrastructure expenditures, airports, not previously authorized $2.567 million; highways, not previously authorized, $10,648 million; marine, not previously authorized, $619,000; road licensing and safety, not previously authorized, $138,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $13.972 million. Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have a question under highways with regard to the Ingraham Trail realignment, a question in terms of where that project is at. I think the description of this project talks about lighting needing to be done and some what I consider reasonably minor bits and pieces that were unable to be done before the snow fell in the fall. I haven’t driven the road often, but I’ve driven it once and it suggests to me that it still needs a fair bit of work on the roadbed, not just on lighting and other bits and pieces to be added. So I’d like to know what this almost $1.2 million is earmarked for and if there is any plan in the works to do some more work grading, et cetera, on the roadbed itself. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the contractors worked to realign the Ingraham Trail from Highway No. 3 to the Yellowknife River to the bypass road for the Giant Mine Remediation Project, delays with the Baker Bridge, moving the power lines resulted in the work not being completed in the fall. The road was open to traffic by November. However, laying chipseal and signage needs to be done in non-winter months and that will take place this fiscal year. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks. I’m sorry, I didn’t get all of that, but was there any indication of any work being done on the roadbed itself?
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Besides chipseal, I think was your last comment. Minister Abernethy.
My apologies, Mr. Chair. I missed her question. If she can repeat it, that would be great.
Ms. Bisaro, could you please repeat your question?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I originally asked what this $1.2 million was for and did it include any work on the roadbed which, to me, seems like it needs a little bit of work done. Apart from chipseal, is there any plan to do any kind of grading and/or upgrading of the roadbed itself?
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to go to the Minister of Transportation to answer that question, if you don’t mind.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The Minister of Transportation, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That money will be used to prepare the road right from where the paving stopped until where the road connects to the other road, and we’ll be applying chipseal and also putting up the signage. That would cover the $1.2 million that’s identified in here.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you to the Minister. Could I get an explanation of what preparing the roadbed means, because it’s pretty rough in some spots right now?
Preparing the road is just to ensure that the road is ready for the application of chipseal.
Okay. I guess I’ll have to wait and see what the road is like after chipseal is done. I hope it can all be done with no more than $1.2 million.
Thank you. I’ll take that as a comment, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am continuing my questioning where Ms. Bisaro left off because I, too, am a bit concerned with $1.2 million left. I, too, have been on that road and I can assure you, given the experience that I’ve had in this room looking at budgets for transportation and road costs, there is a heck of a lot more than $1.2 million left to do there.
My question is this: Is this project still on budget? I’ve asked that a couple of times, and I’ve always been reassured we’re on budget, we’re on budget, we’re on budget, so I’m going to ask again, are we on budget?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amount of money that is being carried over is enough to meet the commitments with a contractor to complete the project.
With the fact that we allowed light traffic, and I received that in a confirmation from the department here. Because we opened ourselves to light traffic on that road, some experts are believing that we actually caused damage to that road by opening up too early. That is going to potentially cost us money in the long run because of our haste to try to open it up under a superficial timeline, which was possibly created by the department. Did that early opening cause issues that we’re going to see come back to us in terms of added costs?
It’s a fairly standard process when the highway is ready for chipseal often it is open to traffic. The concept is that actually the driving on the road before the application of the chipseal doesn’t damage the road where it would need a lot of remediation before the application of the chipseal. As the road stands today, we would be able to prepare it and apply the chipseal and that opening it did not cause damage that exists now today had we not opened it at all.
I guess if we can get confirmation that because we opened the road early, a lot of the granular on the surface was dissipated, was moved around. Some of that granular, actually, now is in the ditch on that road, which means that we need to get more granular on that road. We all know well how much granular costs in the Territories. Has granular been an issue now as a result of this early opening, and again, are we going to see unforeseen costs?
There is no indication that there is any issue with the granular material that is on the bypass road.
Driving on that road recently, there were a number of boulders that I saw on the road that actually fell from some of the escarpments as the road was being cut through a lot of narrow passageway, and at that point in time there was a bunch of red pontoons around it, but there were a substantial size of boulders here. Has there been a full safety check on this road so that, again, it’s safe to drive because, again, these boulders looked fairly dangerous if one was to run into one.
