According to calculations, there’s $142,000 remaining in research and development funding from Building Canada Plan. Can the department indicate what they’re going to be doing with those funds?
The $142,000 is the incremental funding that we’re getting this year. We already would have had $256,000 in the base, so the two make about $400,000 that we have in the Building Canada Plan for research and development related to climate change. We have a number of projects that are underway already that will get funded from that including preparation of a climate change adaptation plan, which is the big project that we have. Then there’s a little bit of monitoring, beginning to do some baseline information gathering related to the Inuvik-Tuk highway. We want to get a good baseline of information on that so that if that project does go ahead we can monitor. Then, of course, we’re also involved with some other initiatives that are national level including a couple of networks of expertise.
Keeping in the theme of this page under corporate services, the recent ban on the use of hand-held devices under the new distraction driving law, can the Minister or designate indicate some of the results of these findings, and if so, when will these results be made public for people to view?
Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s still very early. It’s only been almost six months. To date, there have been 30 charges laid under the distracted driving legislation to date in the territory. For a further breakdown, I suppose we could find out by community for the Member if he likes.
The other question that I asked was when will these numbers be made available to the public. Is this going to be a website broadcast or something that DOT will have on their website to continuously update residents of the Northwest Territories?
We don’t do that for other offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, so I can’t see us doing that for this amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act. It’s just not something we’ve done in the past and I don’t see us doing that in the future.
Given the fact that you may not do that with other initiatives, this is obviously more of an initiative in which I think safety is critical. If the Department of Transportation is not willing to use that as a public relations opportunity to promote good driving, would the Minister or the department agree to sharing information on a quarterly basis to Regular Members?
We had received that information from the RCMP and if the question comes up down the road from Members, we can certainly try to find that detailed information through the RCMP. Thank you.
Thank you. We are on page 11-13. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just wondering if the vehicle licensing is in corporate services or is that in highways. That sounds like it might be in highways so I’ll save that one.
The other thing, in terms of planning, again, I’m wondering where the division is between the divisions and planning, but I’m wondering where… I’d like to talk a little bit about the maintenance of our highway systems versus decisions to put resources into new road infrastructure, if that would be, again, under planning and policy here or whether that would be in highways.
I think, Mr. Bromley, your question about vehicle licensing would be under the activity summary for road licensing and safety, which is page 11-33. We will defer your question until we get there. To your other question, Mr. Neudorf, please.
The planning comes underneath this activity. We have a planning, policy and environment division. They undertake our capital planning for the department. Of course, we’re part of the GNWT capital planning process, and that’s where we seek the capital funding for various projects. That division is also responsible for our development of strategic plans.
Our Highway Strategy would have been prepared by that division. Those strategic plans are what guides as we determine priorities. Those plans would always note that maintaining existing infrastructure and finding resources to support existing infrastructures are the top priority, but we always look for opportunities to expand our system.
The Mackenzie Valley Highway has always been a priority as well in those documents. Inuvik-Tuk highway and the works that’s underway now would have been noted in those documents as well. Of course, with the federal government announcement, the lobbying that we’ve been doing for the funding for any number of years has come to fruition, so we’re working on that as well. Thank you.
I’d like to pose my question now that I’ve got confirmation that that’s where that is. The maintenance of the existing network of highways is purportedly, according to the department presentations, priority number one, and I think most of my colleagues would agree that that’s an appropriate policy, a correct approach. Unfortunately, we have fallen far behind on maintenance of our highway systems and abandoned that responsibility to a large degree, especially in this budget this year, in favour of accelerating new projects and at an unwarranted pace, as was referenced by the deputy minister.
These are, unfortunately, projects that are both expensive and still unknown as to what their costs are, although each estimate we come up with seems to be greater than the one before. Some immediate examples come to mind. Highway No. 7 we’ve heard a lot about. The Detah road is certainly one in my riding, and the Ingraham Trail, massive work being put into that and already we can see the impacts there. Highway No. 3 and so on. Additionally, though, the new projects are proposed in the most problematic terrain we have and thus these new projects are committing us to yet greater annual maintenance requirements and subsequently greater deficits. I don’t know how we’re going to catch up here if we don’t look after the highways, which is our current situation.
These do cost our residents both in terms of their vehicles and so on, and communities’ vehicles, business vehicles, et cetera, and they are starting to get into the area of increasing safety risks. Clearly, that sort of approach is sustainable. The department would be the first to say that. The Minister would say, and the deputy minister had already said, that a balance of old and new projects’ maintenance and new projects is what they are striving for. Clearly – and even this has come out from the staff – they are not doing the maintenance that is required. How can the Minister justify this? Is this the sort of thinking that have got us in this situation, and so many other areas of government, including other areas of Transportation?
The Deh Cho Bridge has cost hundreds of millions of dollars of options and services that government could have delivered and could be delivering over the next 35 years. This is not a light one to me. This can’t be put aside as, oh, we need a balance and we will go for these new projects and catch up later. This government has already experienced deficits in our infrastructure maintenance and so on. I would like a more in-depth explanation both how this can be justified and how we are going to get out of it, given that the cost will only get worse, particularly given the impacts of climate change and any new development activities we enjoy. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Ramsay.
Madam Chair, I appreciate the Member’s concerns. However, we got the marching orders from this Legislative Assembly to pursue new opportunities and that is something that the department is doing. I believe wholeheartedly that we can balance the demands on maintaining the system that we have while pursuing new objectives. We have a ready, willing and able partner in the federal government.
In looking at the construction of the Inuvik-Tuk highway, we are going through the environmental assessment currently. We are going to determine what the cost of that highway is going to be. We have not got there yet, so anybody that is throwing numbers around, that is all it is, just throwing numbers around. We will determine what the cost is going to be.
We take safety on our road system as of paramount importance to the department and to this government. We take that seriously. We try to balance all of those demands, and I do believe the department is doing a good job in balancing the demands that are out there. We can’t just sit back and rest on our laurels. I think we need to pursue new projects. We need to grow this territory. We need to grow the economy here. By building new pieces of infrastructure in this territory, that is how we are going to build the territory. That is how we are going to grow the economy. That is how we are going to lower the cost of living to some of our residents in the isolated communities. That is something the government takes seriously. We are going to pursue that. Thank you.
Thanks for the Minister’s response. I guess I have a couple of points on that. The Minister referring to the marching orders of the Legislative Assembly and I don’t debate him on that. The only thing is I don’t think he would suggest that we park our brain outside the door. When the economic analysis for that highway was built entirely on the Mackenzie Gas Project, when that was temporarily shelved for five or 10 years as it has been, then I would think that this body of representatives would likely bring that into consideration and adjust our plans accordingly. It might buy us a window of opportunity to catch up on some of our debts and prevent other debts such as the maintenance problem. That is with reference to the marching orders.
With reference to the belief that we can handle this, typically we try and make decisions on more than belief when it comes to spending the taxpayers’ dollars. I wonder if the Minister would commit to having his department provide us with a report on the status of our network of highways and the maintenance, where we are at with maintenance of that infrastructure. Thank you.
Again, I do appreciate the Member’s comments and concerns. We heard some other Members, many other Members during their opening comments on how well contractors around the Northwest Territories and our staff have been maintaining the road system here in the Northwest Territories. I thank the Members that provided those comments.
Again, as we go forward here, I don’t want people to think that this highway, the Inuvik-Tuk highway between Inuvik and Tuk was solely premised on the Mackenzie Gas Project. Again, we are still optimistic that the Mackenzie Gas Project will go ahead, but there are a number of other reasons why this highway is of paramount importance to the Mackenzie Delta and to this territory.
Today there is hardly any economic activity in the Mackenzie Delta. They desperately need work. If you look at the future of both onshore and offshore in the area of petroleum development in the Mackenzie Delta, this road will be an integral part of the development of the resources that are there. I have mentioned this before, too, and as a government it is important for us to keep all of our options open. By not building this road, I think we are closing the door on opportunities. We are going to not allow the economic activity and development of the Mackenzie Delta, and I think that should be front and centre. I think we are pursuing the Inuvik-Tuk highway for all of the right reasons. I think we should continue to pursue that highway. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak to page 11-13? Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Minister Ramsay, for those comments. I don’t think I have said the words we shouldn’t build the Inuvik-Tuk highway. I am talking about maintenance of our highways here and balancing it with going aggressively after large, uncosted new projects. The Minister is on record as saying that he would like construction to start this spring or this fall, which I am all for enthusiasm and stuff. I am hoping the Minister won’t try and put words in my mouth and didn’t mean to do that, because I have not ever said that. Thanks for that discussion. I think the Minister knows my thinking on those and that of my colleagues.
My second topic is I know the department has put together a progressive green plan with their facilities and so on. I can’t remember the name of it. It has a catchy name. There we go. If I could just get an update on how we are doing and implementation of that. I believe that came out a year or two ago. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Neudorf.
Madam Chair, Green Light is our action plan or strategy that shows what we intend to do to minimize the impact of our activities on the environment. We are working at implementing the actions in there. Some of the things we have talked about already have been highlighted in the Green Light, including the work on climate change. That is kind of one of the front and centre concerns and areas that we need to be paying attention to and conducting research to. I am sure that we have good adaptation plans. We are also working on our own greenhouse gas emission reduction mitigation plan that is in the early stages, but the work on that has begun.
I would note that we have had various initiatives in the past to try to minimize our fossil fuel consumption and production of greenhouse gases. The most recent thing that was done is we just put in new engines on the Lafferty. That’s the ferry at Fort Simpson. They are much more efficient than the older engines were and we’re looking forward to the benefits of that.
We continue, as well, to remediate our contaminated sites. There are a number, about two or three of those projects a year that we try to undertake. Fort Resolution Airport was completed last year, Checkpoint is still underway and James Creek Camp is the next on our priority agenda. James Creek up on the Dempster Highway.
There are a number of other specific smaller things, including a Green Team within DOT looking at internal office programs and we also work with Public Works and Services and their Capital Asset Retrofit Fund. They are maintaining our buildings and implanting the various energy initiatives as part of that. The most recent project there is to install a wood pellet boiler at our combined services building at Yellowknife Airport. Thank you.
That’s all I had on this page. Thank you.
Thank you. To page 11-13, activity summary, corporate services, operations expenditure summary, $10.228 million.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We’ll move to page 11-14, an information item, corporate services, active positions.
Agreed.
No questions? Page 11-17, activity summary, airports, operations expenditure summary, $28.677 million. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Transport Canada is in the process of reviewing all runway lengths throughout Canada and NWT is no different. Can the Minister or delegate team give us an update on some of the outcomes based on those reviews, and how does that affect the runways that we have currently throughout the Northwest Territories? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Transport Canada is looking at changing regulations around requiring the establishment of runway end safety areas, RESAs they’re called. That initiative or that regulation, if it goes forward, would impact our runways because we would need to construct these runway end safety areas and if that’s not possible, then you have to actually work to shorten the length of the runway. So the required safety area can be provided at either end of the runway.
Transport Canada has come out with proposed regulations. They’ve done quite a number of different consultations on that. They’ve received quite a few concerns on that particularly from northern jurisdictions. We were one of those departments that expressed concern on that regulation and the changes, with the feeling that it might actually work to make it less safe than more safe, which is what they were trying to do.
Transport Canada has heard the comments that were received back, and the last update that I received, which was about two months ago, is they were taking a step back on the regulation. They were going to conduct a whole cost-benefit analysis of it and make sure that it would be meeting its stated objective, which was to make airport runways safer. So we are waiting to see the results of that review. Thank you.
In 2005 the cost of runway expansion for the Yellowknife Airport was estimated at around $35 million. The premise back then was to enhance or increase the opportunity for tourism, opening the corridor to opportunity. Knowing full well that this is not a capital budget, but the philosophy, obviously while we’re talking about airports, is something near and dear to a lot of Yellowknifers and people in the tourism sector. The question to the Minister is: Do we have any, is there any appetite out there that this is something that’s going to appear sometime in the near future in terms of the runway expansion for Yellowknife Airport?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Member for the question. This is an issue that has been around for some time. It is directly related to tourism as well. The length of the runway here in Yellowknife has been an issue. It’s something we continue to look at. There is, perhaps, an opportunity working through the Department of National Defence at expanding the runway length in Inuvik and Yellowknife. Inuvik is more advanced in discussions with DND on expansion there. Costs have gone up tremendously. I believe the project in Inuvik is somewhere between $60 million and $90 million. So it’s a big expense. Of course, with our airport here in Yellowknife, we’d need some assurances that construction on an extension is not going to disrupt the traffic that we have at the airport today. I think that’s a big factor in all this as well. So we continue to look at that. On the tourism side, there may be some other opportunities with smaller aircraft and landing here and then taking off empty and dropping people off here. So there are other opportunities that might play themselves out as it relates to tourism. Thanks.
So I guess the question I have for the Minister is: Is there a plan of action or a formal review in the works for the department in looking at runway expansions, not necessarily only in the Yellowknife area but an opportunity to put up corridors for opportunity for future business, be it tourism, be it working with the Department of National Defence? When was the last time a review of this nature was done for thorough analysis, Madam Chair?
Yes, we will be updating our Transportation Strategy and issues like that will certainly be a part of that.
The extension here in Yellowknife is probably closer to $20 million. Again, if the need is just so that we can land some jets from Europe and Asia, then we have to gauge that expense against what we are going to receive out of it as an economic benefit. Maybe it’s time we took another look at what the opportunity is there and what that investment would mean. It’s a capital investment of upwards of $20 million to expand the runway here in Yellowknife. I don’t think we can give up hope on talking to the federal government and that’s something we should continue to do. That’s where that project is at today. Thank you.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments. I know the businesses in Range Lake, the aviation industry in Range Lake and my residents of Range Lake would be happy to hear that a development of that nature is potentially in the works to enhance the current offering. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to ask a different one. I’m sure the Minister is aware of Discovery Air’s plans of acquisition of aircraft. I’m wondering what work the department is doing to prepare for the operational safety and reliability issues associated with airstrips. We’ve got about a year and a half, according to the last news release, on the Discovery Air plans. Maybe there have been changes and updates. About a year and a half/two years from now, we are expecting to have airships occupying the airspace in the Northwest Territories and using our facilities, I presume. I’m wondering what sort of work the department is doing to ensure that we have operational safety and reliability issues figured out. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Indications are that program initially would be a pilot-type program, so the department’s monitoring the advancement of the use of dirigibles in the Northwest Territories. That’s where we’re at today. We’re monitoring the situation.
I think that’s a wise place to start. Obviously, a year and a half is the announced schedule. We’ll see whether they stick with that.
First of all, these are not small pieces of equipment and they’re very unique and I assume would have implications. I wonder if the Minister would commit to starting to give some thought to that and maybe let us know. No rush, but I think some assurance the department is starting to consider those sorts of things so we’re not caught flat footed. That’s all I had on that.
I appreciate the Member’s comments. We will continue to monitor this. Those type of airships, it may be that they don’t even need to use the airport, the type of aircraft that they are. We will continue to monitor and I know the department is aware of the plans there. If we need to act and work with that company, we will do that.
The Minister could be dead on there. The other possibility that I’ve heard is I’ve heard them called hybrid air vehicles. So they do use runways and so on. It could be either one alright. That’s the last comment I have.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just with regard to airports, I know that we’ve made some significant headway with some of the small communities in my riding in terms of infrastructure and some runway lighting issues. I’d certainly like to continue to ensure that they are followed up. Begging the committee’s indulgence, I do want to speak about the Trout Lake Airport construction. It’s a capital issue but it’s kind of stalled right now. I believe the government’s going to be taking over controlling the contract. The concern from the community is that they don’t lose out. The concern for me as MLA is that they don’t try to do a plan like they did the first time when they tried to run it with bringing in contractors from outside my region without giving due process or opportunities to proximity communities like Fort Simpson and/or Fort Liard to provide for the contracting services of hauling gravel or whatever has to be done there. That’s a significant concern and I just wanted to advise the Minister that as MLA for Nahendeh I will not stand for it and I will be closely monitoring the progress of the construction of the airport this coming fall and winter. Just with that concern, I’d like the Minister to address that that’s not on their plan at all.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Member’s concerns related to the Trout Lake Airport construction. There have been some issues there. We’ve been working through the issues with the community. The community has requested the department and agreed that the negotiated contract be set aside and that DOT take over the management of the project. That’s what we intend to do. Construction, again, should start sometime soon, with an eye to maximizing opportunities at the community level. That’s something that we will be keeping a close eye on as well. I think we were there before and there were a number of concerns over the management of that contract by the community. We take those concerns seriously. This time around we want to ensure that construction is complete and the project gets finished with the greatest extent of local involvement as possible.
I know that it’s in everybody’s best interest to have a good-news story as we work towards the completion of the Trout Lake Airport. Regretfully, it was delayed almost by a year. Everybody wants to see it done, and done properly.
My concern again is, like many of our other regions, we’re kind of like a have-not and it hurts the community and it hurts the region when our government is offering contracting opportunities to other regions before they even work with the contractors in the Nahendeh riding. That’s my initial concern and I just want to advise the Minister that the community wants to be involved and as soon as they’re not involved or see other people who are, if outside contractors are allowed in, they’re the first ones to know and they contact me immediately. That’s not something I think we should be going forward with, and I just want the department to be aware that all best efforts need to be done to utilize local contractors and/or proximity community contractors to get that work done and they can be easily managed and smoothly and in a win-win situation for the community and for the region.
We will endeavour to do that. At the end of the day we want to see the airport construction in Trout Lake concluded for the benefit of the residents in Trout Lake. We do feel that they have to benefit from that construction as well. We will do our utmost to ensure that happens.
