Mr. Chairman, as we indicated earlier, we haven’t firmed up our work plan for the long term as we’re still waiting for some information and some testing that’s being done, and to get the engineering reports back. It would be fairly easy, I guess, to look at portions of the road that are reconstructed to chipseal, but I am a little hesitant as there is so much need for this Highway No. 7 that if we did take some money out of the construction costs to chipseal, then, of course, that would leave us with a little less to do reconstruction. So that’s going to be determined. The reality, of course, is Highway No. 7 has to be reconstructed right from start, from zero all the way to Checkpoint and that’s going to be a long-term investment and we need a plan to do so. Thank you.
I’d like to thank the Minister for those answers. Just to reiterate one more time, that at anytime that there’s a federal meeting, that he just continue to raise the issue that we want tourists and Canadians to view our spectacular North at Highway No. 7 at Fort Liard. It is one of the entry points and tourism numbers by road that Parks Canada just released that they’ve increased fly-ins into Nahanni National Park and I’m glad for that, but drive-ins, the numbers are just that much poorer, Mr. Chair, and it’s because of the condition of the road. I know that the amount of investment that the Minister is talking about is significant and certainly getting the federal government as a partner as we work towards developing our North would certainly go a long way, Mr. Chair. So as part of our federal engagement strategy, I really think perhaps we should maybe consider Highway No. 7 as one of the hot item topics, as it were, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
We’ll certainly keep that in mind. Every Member has raised issues that are hot item topics, and looking at our five-year needs, if we were to try and accommodate all of the projects and all of the needs that are out in the Territories -- there are many -- we’d probably need about a $2 billion budget for five years. But, Mr. Chairman, we’re anticipating we’re going to continue to talk to the federal government to reinforce the need that we have in our infrastructure and encourage them to invest in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Next on my list I have Mr. Krutko.
Maybe just a suggestion. I see $2 million on Highway No. 5. Maybe we could do Highway No. 7 to speed up the process.
My question is in regard to the Tuk resource gravel access road. I know I’ve been asking for the same type of arrangement for the Aklavik access road to their gravel source. There was a motion passed in this House supporting both projects, but again it seems like we are not as far ahead in regard to the Aklavik project as we were in regard to the Tuk project. So can the Minister give me an update on exactly where we are with the Aklavik gravel access road project and do we see any capital investment in that in the future, hopefully somewhere in the range that we gave to the Tuk project? I believe, in the budget, I see $1.4 million. So maybe you could elaborate on what that $1.4 million, what the total costs for the Tuk resource road are to date.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. A couple of questions there. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Tuk access road funding came through the Building Canada Program and it’s allowed them to build a road to source 177. We’re still waiting to see from the federal government where investment is going to be in infrastructure for the next couple of years. We anticipate we’re going to have that discussion as things progress. We still also are not aware of what the federal government is planning to do with the stimulus program.
We do, however, have some commitment for investment on this access road to the gravel source with the community of Aklavik, and we’ve done a lot of work with the steering committee that was formed, and we did some baseline assessments and needed to do further research to bring it to the level of the project description report. We’ve made a submission to the federal government and are anticipating we’ll hear back sometime before Christmas. However, we are committed to following through with that and we want to sit down with the Aklavik steering committee and start that work and get that ongoing so we’ll be in a position to tap into any new federal programs that may come forward. We’ve also applied for and received approval to cost share a bridge along that route, that alignment, and we anticipate that’s going to move forward this winter and get the material on site and start construction over the next while. Thank you.
My other question was: I’ve looked in the budget and there’s $1.4 million for the Tuk resource gravel access road. Can you elaborate on what the $1.4 million is for?
I apologize; I forgot the question. That amount is identified for investment in some finishing gravel and also royalties for the gravel. Thanks.
Maybe the Minister could elaborate on the royalty side. Are the royalties for access for gravel, or what’s the royalties for? What are you paying royalties for?
Mr. Chairman, for clarification, money identified here, that would go to royalties and it’s for our own material that was used.
Similar question as my colleague from Nahendeh in regard to some sort of dust control. In the past we have had a program for main street dust control. Back in the 14th Assembly there were a few communities that had been identified and I know I have raised this issue with the Minister. Also, what we’re finding is that the communities that did receive the dust control in regard to main street chipseal, but the life of that chipseal is pretty well up now and a lot of them originate off the highway system in regard to Fort Liard using that, for instance, Fort McPherson where they’ve done main street chipseal. So I know I have approached the Minister and I’ve raised questions in the House to the Minister about the possibility of expanding that program to work in conjunction with the Department of Transportation, the community, and the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs to see about partnering on some arrangement to deal with that dust control in the different communities. So can the Minister tell me, is there any possibility of working with your department? I know you’ve made commitments in the House to look at this, but I’d just like to know what arrangements can be made in regard to that possibility.
Also, I know we did receive some dollars from Building Canada for research money to look at the whole area of permafrost. So is that something that we can possibly look at? I believe in the budget there’s various highway chipseal overlay programs. Is there a possibility of seeing some work done, or even to work in partnership with the communities, the Department of Transportation and the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs?
Mr. Chairman, the Main Street Dust Control Program was a program initiated by MACA. It was funded by MACA and the Department of Transportation provided the support and technical information and we continue to do a lot of the same kind of work that we did with that program, even though that program has sunsetted. We are in communication with several communities. We are talking to the community of Fort McPherson in the Member’s riding. We are also providing support to the community of Fort Providence, which is chipsealing all their roads next year. We’re also going to be communicating with the communities that are going to be in close proximity to some of the highway work that’s going to be done. Fort Resolution, for example, is in a good position to look at economies of scale as a chipper and all the equipment will be in that area. They wanted to venture into some investment in that area. Fort Simpson is probably another community that will have chipseal and equipment working in the area and probably could take advantage of it.
So we’ll communicate that information and we do still provide technical support to communities. We do respond to questions and inquiries that come from communities, to provide them with any kind of information that they have in this area of chipsealing and road prep. Thank you.
Again, like my colleague from Nahendeh, I had an opportunity to drive down here from the Mackenzie Delta along the Dempster. I mean, no fault to the road, it was pretty wet and pretty slippery. Again, I think it’s got to be expected from the roads that do have a clay base and we are seeing a real effect to those roads. I think we have to find either a new method of dealing with protecting the surface of our highways and reducing the overall operational costs and resurfacing costs to our highways year after year after year. I think we do have to look at the possibility of looking at some sort of surface appliance, whether it’s chipseal or good old Easy Street. I think that we have to make that investment.
I had the opportunity to drive on the roads through the Yukon. Most of their roads are chipsealed to most of their communities. With regard to travelling on Highway No. 97, I believe, in northern B.C. from the Alaska Highway to the NWT junction just before Fort Liard, they’ve resurfaced the whole highway. I think that if we can look at the long-term viability of resurfacing all our highways with some sort of means of protecting the hardtop.
Do we have a long-term capital investment plan looking at some sort of means of resurfacing our highways throughout the Northwest Territories and protecting our capital investment by way of infrastructure?
Our focus has been to invest in the reconstruction of our highways prior to providing chipseal. On Highway No. 8, for example, we intend to look at some type of surface protection as we move forward. However, our plan is to do the reconstruction up to Tsiigehtchic and then start to do either chipseal or some type of hardtop on our roads on Highway No. 8.
Other jurisdictions, of course, are using revenues from industry, oil and gas to upgrade their sections of road and we’re not in a position to do the same thing.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Committee, we’re on highways section, page 9-10, Department of Transportation, activity summary, highways, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $50.3 million. Agreed? Mr. Krutko.
I just have another question to the Minister in the area of bridges. I know there was that federal program, I think it was $50 million-plus, and there was, I believe, a list of items that were put forward to the federal government. I think that’s another area we have to look at the possibility of putting bridges in place to replace the ferry operations. I know there are two bridges that were being discussed: the Bear River Bridge and the Peel River Bridge. I’d just like to ask the Minister what the status is of the request for the federal government P3 initiative of $50 million-plus projects. I know those were some of the projects that were put forward for consideration. I’d like to ask the Minister where we are on the Peel River Bridge.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m assuming the Member is referring to our application to P3 Canada to do some research in the area of financial investigation in ways we can be creative in trying to get the projects in the Northwest Territories to meet the criteria under the P3 Canada program. There are a number of projects we have looked at and right now don’t feel they meet the criteria but have good potential. We’ve asked for some dollars to investigate the process, with the aid of some financial experts. We have not received any word as to the status of that application and hopefully we’ll have some positive news in the next little while.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Once again, committee, we’re on page 9-10, Department of Transportation, activity summary, highways, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $50.3 million. Agreed?
Agreed.
Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions on the infrastructure on highways. Can we go back to that page?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Sorry; I thought you were summoning a Page there. Committee, let’s retract that last action and we’ll move back to page 9-10 on highways and go to Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, colleagues. I want to ask a question to the Minister in terms of the project description report funding and the push to construct the Mackenzie Valley Highway sometime within this century here. Can the Minister indicate the status of the project description funding and hopefully where that would carry us through to iron on the ground in terms of actual construction of the highway with reference to his exchange with Mr. Krutko on the piece of infrastructure that’s going to be needed on the Bear River Bridge to go ahead? Are those dollars identified in here? What are the results of finishing off this project description funding and the work that needs to move to the next level? Certainly that requires the federal government’s contribution. Does the all-weather road follow within a type of P3 concept? Are we moving in that direction or is that something that can be discussed at the next Assembly?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, we have signed agreements with a number of the aboriginal governments allowing the Mackenzie Valley route up to Tuktoyaktuk. We have agreements for the Inuvik-Tuktoyaktuk portion. That research has been completed and the work in the Gwich’in Settlement Area is progressing. We have an agreement with the Gwich’in Tribal Council and we also have an agreement with the Tulita Land Corporation. We have yet to sign an agreement with the Fort Good Hope people and the Dehcho. A lot of discussion has taken place and I think we should have agreements in both those communities or both those areas fairly soon. Things are progressing well.
The project description discussions, I would say, with the G’asho Got’ine, the Fort Good Hope and Colville Lake district, I believe that later on when I meet with the leaders tonight, I know they had some discussion around this area. They’re very confident that this government here is going to come to a conclusion and sign off a deal. They’re just wondering about... I guess they have to come to agreement on the numbers that they’re using right now. I feel that could be within a matter of days that they will come to an agreement.
My point is that the Minister has given a lot of support to the communities that do need roads in their regions and can this type of project description report evolve into projects that will make sense for people in my region, such as putting roads in the Sahtu? Some discussion about even building a road from Tulita to Norman Wells? Those types of issues. Is that where the project description can lead to, or does the Minister have other ideas as to once we finish all the project description reports, then we go to the next stage? I just wanted to flesh out some of the thoughts of the Minister on the department’s direction as to what’s possible out there in terms of this Assembly and moving on to the next Assembly on this very important issue.
The work that we’re doing right now is trying to capture all the needs in terms of project description reports for the whole of the Mackenzie Valley Highway all the way up to Tuk from Wrigley. We expect to have all that information. We’ve given ourselves a two-year window to gather all that. Some areas are progressing faster than others. We’ve also completed an economic analysis on the whole Mackenzie Valley Highway system. It’s come back positive. With all the information we’ve gathered, we feel we’re in a very good position to move forward.
We have to recognize, of course, that it can’t be done without federal investment in any fashion. Whether we consider being creative in terms of putting together a P3 package, it would still involve considerable investment from the federal government, who still holds the responsibility for road construction across the Northwest Territories; new road construction. We can’t leave out the fact that as part of new road construction we also have to be able to accommodate the O and M costs. A road from Wrigley to Tuktoyaktuk would have a very significant cost to operate and maintain. That would have to be paid for by either this government or the federal government or a combination of both. So there’s a number of things that we’d have to take into consideration other than just finding the resources to build it.
The approach to the Mackenzie Valley Highway has been long discussed within these Assemblies and the people down the Mackenzie Valley. Certainly we recognize that the federal government will play a huge part in terms of constructing this road here. I look forward to the day when this government and this Minister can bring forward a P3 discussion or we can have some discussions as to the possibilities out there in terms of building part of the Mackenzie Valley Highway. We have yet to see a P3 discussion or paper in front of this Legislative Assembly to look at infrastructure such as this. So we’re very far back in terms of actually putting the steel on the ground, to cut a road into the Sahtu and build a road up to Mackenzie Highway No. 8 up in Inuvik. I just want to make note to the Minister that we have all these things going for us. Are there other things such as the P3 discussion that we can have to say this is one possibility we could look at? Right now we have nothing in front of us to have a meaningful consultation with our people in the regions.
The issue of the Mackenzie Valley Highway has been on the drawing board, has been on the radar screen for many, many years and with many governments. This is the furthest we’ve moved it with the partnership with the federal government in the history of the development of this road, I think since the last stretch was constructed. The 16th Assembly has been able to secure some funding to do the PDR and I think that is going to provide some of the backup information that maybe was missing. We’ll be able to put a very good business case together to bring it forward.
We are also securing dollars to do a study on infrastructure projects that could fit, how could we make them fit with the concept of P3. Right now, there are no projects under the Mackenzie Valley road for P3 consideration. There is no revenue source. The traffic volumes are just not there to be able to pay for a large piece of infrastructure, or even a portion of it, through tolls or through fees of that nature. It would take somebody to pay for it first and then recover our costs, and you’re not going to attract a partner that would do that unless there’s an ability to recover that through revenues. That’s something that has to be looked at, and we plan to do that with these new dollars once we get approval from the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, just in closing, these numbers don’t work for us. Certainly, they work against us in terms of the cost-benefit analysis, P3 and the revenue and putting up a huge infrastructure such as the Mackenzie Valley Highway. You know, unless we have a real kind heart down in Ottawa that says we’ll give you a certain amount, billions of dollars, to build this Mackenzie Valley Highway, I think we have to move beyond this type of thinking. It has to be a political move in lining up with the northern agenda of this government, in terms of sovereignty, in terms of a whole bunch of other things that would make this highway a reality. If we were to go on the numbers and what it’s going to cost us and the small amount of impact that it’s going to have, we’re not going to do it. I think we have to move outside this realm and we have to move it to a level of sovereignty and security and other issues that the federal government will say yes, we want to spend money on this road and let’s get going. The $1.8 billion is not much when you look at the whole big picture of infrastructure in Canada, so we have to have more discussions at a different table. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Would the Minister care to respond with a comment?
Mr. Chairman, we don’t disagree with the Member. We’ve used the very same arguments that he’s laid out and it doesn’t change the fact that we need $1.8 billion plus O and M to put this project forward. We continue to make those arguments. We meet with the federal government on a regular basis. We will be meeting again with several of the federal Ministers in early November and we will put the arguments forward. We’ve included it in all our reports to the federal government. We’ve also laid out the needs, we’ve laid out the arguments, and we think we’re moving forward into a better position to develop a stronger business case and we need a lot more of the research to do that. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Committee, we are on page 9-1. Mr. Krutko.
I just have a question in regard to the budget itself. It seems like we’re putting a lot of focus around chipseal, but I’m just wondering why have we not left that open ended in regard to surface materials and not stipulate chipseal. Chipseal limits you to a specific product. There are other products being produced such as cold asphalt. There are different types of concrete appliances being used. There are other countries in the world that are coming up with new ways of applying surface to different types of products that you mix. I’d just like to know why is it that we continue to stipulate the word chipseal, because I think it limits the ability to use other products and it seems like we are limiting the abilities of other types of products being used. I’d just like to know why is it that we continue to stipulate chipseal in the budgetary process when we talk about resurfacing, regardless if it’s Highway No. 5 or in regard to Highway No. 7, Highway No. 3. I’d like to know if we are open to other types of projects in the Northwest Territories besides chipseal.
Mr. Chairman, chipseal is the preferred material for us to use as we are familiar with chipseal. We know the durability of chipseal. We have in the last little while been experimenting with putting the fibre barrier underneath chipseal and we’ve also looked at different ways that we can improve, including double layering. Mr. Chairman, it’s also the most cost-effective process to use. Asphalt and other products, including concrete, are very expensive. We have involved a company out of Yellowknife to do some testing on their product and right now we still haven’t been able to get more cost-effective material that does a fairly good job. The lifecycle is around five years and it’s proving to be the best way to go for us. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I think, looking at it by way of the usage over a period of time, like you say, five years is usually the life of the product where you basically have to rip it up and redo the whole thing again. I’m just wondering if that’s something that’s the problem with chipseal, it has a short duration of usage and then you basically have to redo it again. I think it’s something that we should be looking at like a product that can possibly double the lifecycle of chipseal, but more importantly, look at other products. You touched on it when you said it’s the cheapest way of applying, but that’s what happens when you go cheap, you have to redo it every five years and it’s going to cost you to continue to resurface all our highways using that type of product.
Again, I think that we should be opened minded to the other different types of products and I think that’s something we should be looking at. Have we been in consultation with our jurisdictions, say northern B.C. or the Yukon or northern Quebec or other places that have tried different types of products? I’d just like to know if we are open minded to looking at other products and try to get more of the lifecycle costs out of the project than simply having to replace chipseal every five years.
Mr. Chairman, yes, we monitor what’s going on in other jurisdictions and we do have discussions with our jurisdictions as to what their best practices are. We have also experimented with several companies on trying to find a better way to make the products last. The reality, of course, is the actual concrete mix is probably 10 times the cost of chipseal and we could replace the chipseal for many, many years at a lower cost than what it costs to apply the other products, and that would really restrict our budget.
We only have a limited amount of investment in the area of hard topping the roads and if we were going to start applying concrete to all our roads or another product that is not of the same cost, we would have very few of our roads covered at this point.
Our plan is to have all the roads chipsealed as we move forward. It’s a long-term plan but it’s something that we know is probably the best for the protection of our roads.
Our gravel roads deteriorate very fast in certain conditions, including wet weather. Chipseal is a product that protects our roads. So that is our plan as a department and as a government. Of course, it’s probably not going to move fast enough for some people and we’re going to have this debate for many years to come. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, there’s something that was brought to my attention, is that there are products out there that you can recycle, reuse, in regard to different types of appliances. So I’m just wondering: Is that something that we’re looking at as the government by way of reusing a lot of these surfacing materials that can be recycled and reused than simply dumped into a landfill after you rip it off. What are we doing to look at the recycle availability of different products so that we don’t have to continue to reapply new products year after year and consider looking at the option of reusing a lot of these materials that we paying for time and time again, not realizing that a lot of that material is sitting in landfills but they could be recycled and reused. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I probably would have to ask the Member to provide the information as to what he is specifically talking about. We do reuse some of the product that we buy from road services. We use them in a different fashion, however. We don’t mill it back up and put it in form of chipseal, but we use it as fill. I am not aware of any other recyclable way to do it. I am not aware of the situation that the Member is referring to. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that just looking out in the parking lot here, the Legislative Assembly, they ripped up all the chipseal that was here. Basically they hauled it to the landfill. A lot of that material could have been recycled because it is an oil-based product. It can be basically reused. I would just like to know, as a government, I think that is the type of stuff we should be looking at if we are looking at a long-term cost of providing this throughout the Northwest Territories, but also realizing there are savings to recycling materials regardless of what the product is. I would just like to request that the Minister seriously look at that issue and maybe investigate it a little more and see if there are those products out there. We should start using those products so we can recycle and reuse and continue to basically resurface all these materials over and over again in my favourite Highway No. 5. I know that highway has been done a few times over. Again, we are spending another $6 million on a highway basically that has been done. It is a great highway, but no traffic.
Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe we have any product that ends up in the landfills. We recycle a lot of the stuff that is part of the reconstruction, and the material that is dug up, we put in as part of fill. We don’t, however, use it again in form of new chipseal. I am not sure of the technologies there to do that. I can’t speak for where the chipseal that was ripped up from the Legislative Assembly parking lot went, but I can say, with comfort, that most of the material we tear up, we recycle.
The Highway No. 5 investment is something that is needed. I am not sure if the Member is aware, but we have challenges on that highway. The highway has developed, over the years, many sink holes as the material underneath is mostly limestone and water is eroding. We have to continue to upgrade it to make sure it is safe and that is something that is challenging us, of course, probably through the climate change issue, but that is an issue that will have to be addressed on a long-term and continual basis.
Thank you, Minister. Next on my list is Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the Minister of Transportation that I wanted to express my appreciation to his staff and work with the communities of Colville Lake, Fort Good Hope and Tulita in terms of the successful completion of the runway extension in Tulita, and working on Colville Lake while it is still in the process, and then working a little more on Fort Good Hope in terms of their runway extension. I wanted to ask the Minister that future working relationships within our region continue and, more specifically, with Deline in that they’re asking about their runway and, of course, there have been some meetings with the Minister and the leadership of Deline in terms of their runway and what is possible.
I want to ask the Minister regarding what little amount of funding that we have, is there any type of funding that could be stopped by the federal government through this department in terms of accessing other dollars that we don’t know about that possibly the leadership of Deline could tap into? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I take it we are back to airports. Mr. Chairman, the Member referenced dollars that we don’t know about. All the dollars that we know about, he knows about. We are trying to be very open and up front with the information.
Mr. Chairman, we have done a number of airport projects in the Member’s riding. In Fort Good Hope the work that was embarked on in that community for the airport is done. We also completed the airport expansion in Tulita. We are about halfway through Colville Lake. We don’t have any dollars identified in this budget for Deline. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Yakeleya, did you wish to ask more questions on airports? Okay. Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Chair, I apologize. I will stick to the highways. Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask in terms of the safety operations on the winter road. The Minister has made comments to the safety of the Mackenzie.
Excuse me, Mr. Yakeleya, for interrupting you. The next section is actually road licensing and safety. Would you like to hold your question for that section? I will take that nod as a yes.
Once again, committee, we are on highways, page 9-10, about to move to road licensing and safety. On page 9-10, Department of Transportation, activity summary, highways, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $50.3 million. Does committee agree?
