Agreed.
Okay. So we’ll start with the infrastructure investment summary, which we will defer until after the details. So we’ll start with airports, which is pages 9-3 to 9-5. First of all, I understand there are no opening remarks, so will the Minister bring witnesses in with him?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Is committee agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. If I could ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses into the House. While we’re waiting for that, airports, committee, is pages 9-3 to 9-5 with the financial summary for airports on page 9-4.
I’m assuming that our witnesses are here. I will call upon the Minister to introduce his witness. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today I have with me Mr. Russell Neudorf, the deputy minister of Transportation.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Welcome, Mr. Neudorf. Committee, page 9-4, airports, Transportation, activity summary, airports, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $11.605 million. Questions? Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is directed to the Minister regarding the federal regulations that now force us to extend our airports throughout the Northwest Territories to meet the federal standards. I’d like to ask the Minister how many more communities we are going to include in here for the extension. I know the community of Aklavik has raised an issue. Also with the different type of aircraft that are being used today is an issue, especially in the Sahtu. I’d like to ask the Minister what we are doing to include more communities in this program to meet the national standard. How many communities are left out there to conclude this work and mitigate that problem?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We initiated a planning study several years ago that reviewed all our airports across the North which has resulted in some recommendations to extend a number of airports to 4,000 feet. The planning study was based on the type of aircraft that utilize the facilities in the communities. We have addressed all the communities that were identified in the planning study.
One of the other aspects that we’re challenged with is the area of climate change and the effect it’s having on permafrost and the protection of the surface of the different airports. Is there any research or work going on to look at the possibility of using different means or methods of surfacing our airports so that we can mitigate some of the effects of climate change? Especially on permafrost.
The Member is quite correct; there have been some serious challenges starting to show up in a number of our transportation infrastructure across the North on our highways and including on our airports where we see some slumping. We are looking at different ways of construction to mitigate these challenges, however, it’s an issue that is going to be ongoing. We have tried different ways to hardtop the airports. We have tried chipseal in some cases. We’ve tried EK35. There is some new technology that we have had discussions with proponents on but have not done any testing on at this point on our airports. That’s an issue that we’ll have to continue to look at ways to address.
I’d just like to ask the Minister if he has any research dollars available to look at different types of research when it comes to mitigating the effects of climate change, especially dealing with public infrastructure such as airports or highways. I’d like to ask the Minister if there are any funds we can access to deal with some of the effects we’re seeing at the airports, especially in dealing with the area of permafrost or continuous permafrost.
We are looking at construction methods on our roads. We are looking at different systems that may be a way to alleviate some of the challenges we’re facing as a result of climate change and the slumping that we’re starting to see in our infrastructure. We do, along with looking at different technology, have some research dollars that have been made available through the Building Canada Program. It’s a seven-year program. There’s $1.85 million and we’ve spent about half of that. So there’s still about 50 percent of those dollars remaining to do other research.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Any other questions, committee, on page 9-4? Agreed?
Agreed.
Moving on. The next section is the marine section, which occurs from page 9-6 through 9-8. The financial summary is on page 9-7. Within the Department of Transportation, the activity summary for marine infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $100,000. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I noted under 9-6 the department is talking about ferry program, ferry services. There is an issue that has come about with the ferry services on the Peel River and the Mackenzie. It’s in regard to the amount of granular material that’s being used for the approaches and how much is being wasted by being put into the rivers; also the effect that it can have on spawning areas or fish, and the build-up of sandbars downstream. I’d like to ask the Minister if the department has looked at alternative means or methods of avoiding using so much silt material in the rivers and, wherever possible, looking at alternative ways of dealing with the ramps for the ferries to land and for the vehicles to get off the approaches. I’d like to ask the Minister where we’re going with that. There are concerns from my constituents, especially with the amount of material that is being dumped into the river year after year where these ferries have been operating for over 30 years. After 30 years that is a lot of gravel that has been placed in those rivers.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, this has been an issue that’s been raised on a number of occasions by the MLA for that constituency. It has also been raised by the chiefs and a number of the leadership, concerns over the amount of gravel that’s being used. We’ve agreed that we need to deal with this issue. It’s part of the process that we’ve embarked on to renew our licence. In 2002 the study was done and it showed that there’s really no issue on the amount of gravel that was being used, however, we want to be able to give comfort to the people who live in that area. We’re looking at alternate methods; maybe different landing sites. We also have investigated the possibility of using a mobile cement pad. It’s already demonstrated that it’s going to be a very costly undertaking, but we want to take a look at that. We also have been reclaiming a lot of that gravel, but maybe that’s an area that we need to put more emphasis on as to reclamation of some of the gravel that’s being put on the shore and in the water. That’s something that we have to resolve as we move forward to renew our water licence.
I have heard the concerns of the communities, but there have also been concerns regarding the licence the government has obtained in the past which clearly specifically stipulates the amount of gravel that was going to be used, which I believe was 500 cubic metres. In most cases you’re exceeding 1,500 cubic metres for the approaches. Also in the licence it talked about the gravel being screened. The gravel is not being screened.
I’d like to know that we have environmental regulations or standards that we’re supposed to meet as government, but, more importantly, mitigate efforts. I know that we do have licences, but are we living up to the obligations in those licences by way of the amount of gravel that can be put into a river system and, more importantly, that the material be screened? I’d just like to know what we are doing to ensure that we are living up to the water licences that we are receiving from the land and water boards.
We feel that we’re meeting the obligations under the water licensing through the amount of gravel that we’re using and the amount that we reclaim. Therefore, we’re meeting the stipulations under the water licence. That’s an issue again that is going to be discussed as we move forward in our application for a new water licence.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Does committee have any further questions on page 9-7, marine? Then on protocol, committee, I’m going to go back. Apparently I need to re-read the numbers before we agree. So I’m going to go back to airports, page 9-4, Department of Transportation, activity summary, airports, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $11.605 million. Is committee agreed?
Agreed.
And again, page 9-7 for marine, Department of Transportation, activity summary, marine, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $100,000. Is committee agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We’ll now turn to highways, which goes from page 9-9 through 9-12. Here we have under Department of Transportation, activity summary, highways, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $50.3 million. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the Minister a question on the highway chipseal overlay program that includes Highway No. 6. I’m wondering if this budget is what is going to be used to complete the chipsealing on a road that was reconstructed this year: kilometres 68 to 90 on Highway No. 6.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, the money included in this budget is not for new chipseal. This is for replacement. That’s what is identified in this capital plan.
Could the Minister tell me if this highway chipseal overlay program will be used for kilometre 24 to 34 on Highway No. 6?
That’s a very specific question and I think it’s chipseal all the way to 28. I should point out that there is some consideration at this point for some internal reallocation that we provided notice to the Members that fall outside of the capital plan as it is money already approved but reallocated.
I’m asking a question, because I’m noticing that chipseal, that’s about the same age as the chipseal on Highway No. 6 from kilometre 1 to 28 that is being replaced, and the other highway, well, the adjoining highway, I’m wondering if there is a plan to do that.
The reason I indicated kilometre 34 was because it was put down and ripped up, from what I understand, a few years back. Then I’ve seen other documentation that indicates that if there would be...in the reconstruction it would be from 34. If the Minister is having difficulty with the question because it’s too specific, I guess my… Not too stupid, no; too specific. I wanted to just ask the question if he knew if they we’re going to do a chipseal overlay from where the chipseal actually exists now on Highway No. 6.
Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There’s never a question that’s too stupid. Mr. Chairman, the Member is asking a question that’s outside of the capital plan that’s in front of us and we don’t have the specific detail, but the answer to his question is no, we’re not planning to replace the area that he is talking about.
The next question goes to Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Chipsealing Highway No. 7, I’ll get to that later, but firstly I’m glad to see, of course, more expenditure on Highway No. 1, and especially the work that was done this year. Our constituents were very pleased with the first, I think it was 35 kilometres of chipseal from the Providence junction towards Fort Simpson. Perhaps if the Minister can elaborate on further work that’s going to happen within that section and if there are any other sections that will be completed this year towards Fort Simpson, and up to and including if there’s an opportunity for the Village of Fort Simpson to cost save if there’s going to be some chipsealing done around Fort Simpson as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We plan to continue the chipseal work that was undertaken this year. We had anticipated we would do 70 kilometres from the junction heading towards Simpson. We weren’t able to do that, so we will have to carry that over and continue that next year.
As part of this capital plan, our intention is to start from -- time providing and weather cooperating, of course -- complete the work that we identified for this year and start next year from Checkpoint and head in the other direction up to kilometre 375.
I’m glad the Minister laid out that plan and it’s something that we certainly look forward to, but the chipsealed section from Checkpoint towards Fort Simpson is slated for some work. If the Minister can comment on that, because there are several sections that do need to be replaced. As well as from the ferry crossing at the Liard crossing toward Fort Simpson there are sections of chipseal that need that remediation work as well. Is that some of the priority of the Department of Transportation as well? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we will be replacing some sections of the chipseal that is damaged and is causing some issues with safety from Checkpoint on to Simpson.
If the Minister can keep my office advised so that we can provide an opportunity for the Village of Fort Simpson to do some cost savings when that equipment is in the area.
Of course, the second one I raised in the House last week was the condition and work plan for Highway No. 7. I’m still curious about that. The Minister did indicate that the waiting on the engineering study was going to be completed this fall. I assume that it’s completed by now. When will they assess the engineering work that was completed? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, the engineering study is not completed as of yet and we hope that will be done fairly quickly. We had a budget of $5 million to do reconstruction and, of course, as the Member is aware, a lot of the money that we spent for this year has gone to repairs of areas that are really challenging us. There are some areas where we’ve had the road fail on us and ditches that are needing replacement that we did not anticipate. So about three-quarters of the $5 million has been spent. We have in the budget $4 million for next year.
Just in terms of Fort Liard, or actually kilometre, I think, 0 to 38, which is the Fort Liard access, how much of that $4 million will be dedicated to that section there, Mr. Chair? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, that is still to be determined at this point.
When the Minister and I were in Fort Liard a couple of weeks ago, residents, of course, expressed the interest of getting that section chipsealed or a portion thereof. Is that something that the Department of Transportation can look at? Because some sections are... Actually, they have been completed for a couple of years now. I don’t know if 0 to 38...38 kilometres there would be doable. If not, Mr. Chair, can the Minister at least commit to some kind of a work plan that within the perhaps three years that’s something that the department is looking at seriously, and up to and including on the capital plan, Mr. Chair? Thanks.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. I’m not sure the Minister can commit to the next Assembly but… Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That will be a little difficult to tie our government for a multi-year investment plan. However, we certainly can commit to developing our engineering study and using that as a guide for future investment. It will certainly identify the areas that need to be placed as priority and attention that needs to be put on those areas. We will develop a multi-year work plan for that piece of highway, or the whole section of this highway; however, the funding will remain in the hands of each government as we progress. Thank you.
I don’t see why we can’t commit to the future there. If once the engineering report is complete, I would certainly like to see a developed work plan and at least we have that for the future, something to work with, because I believe that that baseline work will certainly confirm and at least solidify a departmental plan when it comes to expenditures and, of course, the degradation of the road, it would be nice to have that engineering study to do it, because the residents already know it there, Mr. Chair. Yes, I would certainly like to see a well-developed work plan and, of course, I would like to see it in the capital plan there, Mr. Chair; however, we’ll take the small steps and get that engineering work done and if the Minister and the department can at least come up with a work plan, I’m glad he’ll review it with me and I would like to share that with the community as well. Thank you.
