Thank you, Mr. Blake. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue for the road to the gravel source at Willow Lake is an issue the Member has brought up a number of times in the past. It is something that we continue, as a department, to work with the community. We have funded them in the past for $250,000 through the Community Access Program. We have also helped them develop PDR work on the road itself. We had I believe it was $100,000 toward a study on a bridge crossing. It was expected that that bridge would cost somewhere around $300,000, but it is expected that the bridge on that road alignment would cost about $1 million now. So the total project would come in at around $19.2 million.
We still are interested in working with the community of Aklavik to see that project happen. Certainly today we don’t have the capital dollars to allow us to commit to that project. We do want to work with the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, and perhaps there is an opportunity to advance the project through new Building Canada money or gas tax funding, as well, as those are opportunities that may present themselves to the community of Aklavik.
I must say that our long-term goal is to connect the community of Aklavik to the Dempster Highway at some point in time. We will continue to look forward to that day when it does come. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Moving on with questions on this activity page, I have Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first question I have on this page is related to Highway No. 3. I don’t see any capital dollars being directed towards Highway No. 3. I think we know, and Mr. Neudorf has said many times, that it’s about the worst highway, most challenging highway in the Northwest Territories. I know there has been some really steady work on this highway and that I believe we have a little bit of research going on out there, too, trying to assess out what some more long-time solutions are, but it continues to be challenging to this day.
There are a number of people, a number of my colleagues that have made comments on the status of this highway and that it is a safety issue. Frankly, I was shocked to not see any dollars, recognizing that this is a very thirsty highway. It can soak up dollars like crazy, but for good reason. We have shown to fairly consistently put some money into trying to address the worse issues on a short-term basis so that we are preserving the safety of people. It’s the busiest highway, I believe, in the Northwest Territories.
I wonder if we can get some comments from the Minister. What about the safety of the people using Highway No. 3? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The highway remains safe. We have made the effort to lower the posted speed limit on that highway.
The Member is right; it has soaked up a tremendous amount of capital dollars over the years, and is in constant requirement for funding for maintenance and maintenance work. The work has been studied on maintenance. We are doing research on the road itself, again, to try to mitigate the impact climate change has had on that highway. We’ll have to continue to put money into that highway. Through Corridors for Canada III we’re looking at another investment to rehabilitate the highway, somewhere around $40 million. So it’s another substantial investment in that highway.
Again, I’m going to sound like a broken record, but there’s not a lot of money to spread around in this capital budget when it comes to highways. It’s very bare bones. It is $90 million, but if you take out the Inuvik-Tuk highway, there’s not a lot of money to go around to other highways in the Northwest Territories and that includes Highway No. 3 in this instance. Thank you.
The Minister made many interesting statements there. First of all, safety, I would say, is an issue, and I can back that up with however many people the Minister would like me to bring as witnesses. It does, as the Minister said, take constant maintenance to maintain safety conditions on this road, and here we have a break in that constancy.
It would be very nice if we could just wait while we pursue these other funds, Corridors III or IV or whatever. But I’m afraid the conditions on this highway don’t stand aside and wait for the Minister to come forward with those dollars.
I think the Minister captured it; we just don’t have the money to spread around. No, no, we have lots of money. We have probably never had bigger highway budgets than this. But we are choosing, as the Minister said himself, to pour that into one new project at the expense of all kinds of facilities in the Northwest Territories, highways. Again, I don’t accept that. That’s their reasoning, when the evidence is clear here. The Minister is aware of the need for maintenance, and yet here we go putting 80 percent of our transportation budget, incredibly, into a new project. Does the Minister have any comments? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I can assure Members that I know there are folks out there and the Member wanted to bring some witnesses, but the highway is safe. Highway No. 3 is safe. If you look at the collision rates between 1993 and 2012, collision rates per million vehicles have gone down over half in terms of the volume of collisions on Highway No. 3. I think that means that our highways are safe. We have statistics to back up the fact that there aren’t as many collisions on that road as there were in the ‘90s and that number has been steadily coming down.
The Member seems to… I don’t know if something is not quite connecting, but we had $200 million put forward by the federal government earmarked for the specific project the Member talks about, the Inuvik-Tuk highway. We don’t have the ability to take any of that $200 million and move it around to Highway No. 3, 8, 7, 6, 1 or 4. You name the highway. We can’t take that money and move it around. That’s not something we’re able to do.
We’re in the process of this funding with the federal government that’s going to see $200 million flow through to the GNWT so that we can build the Inuvik-Tuk highway. That’s the status of that $200 million and we don’t have the ability to move it around.
I think maybe some Members are under the assumption that we can just take some of that money and move it around. That can’t happen. That’s why you see the budget the way it is and we are going to carry forward.
I have to say this, as well, Mr. Chairman. This is the first year in probably the last eight or nine years – and I’ve been here almost 10 years now – that we haven’t had a federal funding program available to us to invest in our highway system in the Northwest Territories. We’ve had that opportunity in the past. This year we just don’t have anything to avail ourselves of when it comes to federal funding programs. It’s kind of that grey zone between us getting new funding programs and the other ones lapsing. So we’re stuck right in the middle, and this capital budget that you see in front of you for Transportation is a reflection of the fact that we just can’t rely on that federal funding this year. We have some, and yes, it’s earmarked for the Inuvik-Tuk highway. That’s the stark reality that we’re living in today.
But we’re hoping to change that with Corridors for Canada III, a $600 million investment in transportation infrastructure across the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
Yeah, baloney, Mr. Chair, to the Minister. That’s absolute baloney. We can move dollars around.
The Minister and his staff so far have used three years, four years and five years for this project, depending on what they find with different things, studies that are underway now. So we can simply decide to do this over a longer period of time. We can decide to push for that in this agreement so that we can afford to do the maintenance that’s required in our highway system across the Northwest Territories. Certainly not all of it, but we can contribute significant amounts.
I guess this is the seventh year of my being an MLA dealing with the capital budget, and this is the seventh year, despite my best efforts and support from colleagues, that I don’t see the Detah road being funded. What is the Minister’s reasoning for this? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, the Detah road was not deemed a high enough priority through the capital planning process. I’ve given assurances to the Member that we have the Detah access road and we will have the ability to conclude that project through Corridors for Canada III, that proposal that we’re bringing forward to the federal government. We’re very optimistic that that funding proposal will be approved by the federal government. The Detah road would figure very prominently, right at the front of that plan, should that proposal be successful. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Final comment, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to propose a motion. I move, if I may, that this committee strongly recommends that the government take immediate action to identify the multi-year funding necessary to complete construction of the Detah access road beginning in fiscal year 2014-2015.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. We’re just going to circulate that motion.
Committee, the motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I mentioned, I’ve been bringing this up for seven years now. Just a little bit on the history. The original construction of the Detah road was very shaky and I know the department is aware of this. It was actually thrown in very quickly at the recommendation of the member of the royalty that had visited Detah during the springtime during the breakup and ended up having a harrowing dog team ride across the deteriorating ice. So he was motivated to lobby very hard and, successfully, this road was put in, but it was put in without much planning or engineering and so on. So, it’s well recognized that it needs to be reconstructed.
It’s costing the residents of this small community of Detah, and at certain times safety issues. I appreciate the department responding when those are reported to the department. Over the decades they have been pretty good responding on a temporary basis to put the band-aid on and run the grader over and so on, but it has been costing people in certainly their vehicle maintenance and tires and so on. Those are real items.
The reconstruction has been on the books now for decades. Yellowknives Dene First Nation, over that period of time, and in the most recent decade has developed the expertise in highway construction and has a demonstrated ability for highway construction. In fact, I believe they sort of broke their teeth on this highway with some support that was finally found during the 16th Assembly to initiate the project. But again, this project was not funded specifically and that’s been the problem from the word go. Just as the Minister’s proposal is right now to seek dollars, he hopes to find dollars, no, we’re saying now, let’s put a definite plan in place to get this project started and started this coming fiscal year. Don’t let this thing waffle along on the possibility of surplus funds if another project comes in under budget. Obviously, that hasn’t happened for decades. So some real firm action is needed.
Since we started this project, we realized the costs are actually very modest and we’re speaking in the order of $1.5 million to $2 million a year for two or three years would be significant enough to finish this project. Despite that and then perhaps that’s why it’s been sloughed off to the possibility of surplus funds and so on, or if we hope to find funds in corridor six, blah, blah, blah.
So I guess I’ve appreciated the support of my colleagues throughout the years and most recently to elevate this project from the backburner sort of when we happen to have surplus funds category to this is a priority. It’s a small but important project so let’s get it done category.
The current highway budget, as I’ve mentioned, and as Members know from looking at the numbers, is so unbalanced that if it was a flat sheet of plywood on the floor, the plywood would be standing up on one corner it’s so unbalanced, almost 80 percent going to one brand new project. That’s amazing. I don’t know where people’s heads are when they come up with that sort of distribution of budget, given the needs such as this in the Territories. Again, modest dollars required.
So we do need new dollars to do this project, but we know that there is potential within the budget to have that reallocation. So I don’t think we necessarily have to have new dollars to commit to this project, as much as make sure the dollars are committed from this year’s budget.
That’s all I have to say, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion and I’ll appreciate my colleagues’ support. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to point out that when Mr. Bromley started his comments, he was chastising Transportation for having too much money in this budget. Now he wants to get a motion to put more money into Transportation, creating a bit of cognitive dissidence on our part. But nonetheless, Cabinet will abstain. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. To Mr. Miltenberger’s comments about this adding funding to the budget, I thought I clearly heard Mr. Bromley say that money could be reallocated from a project that takes up an extremely large chunk of the Transportation budget, take $1 million and put it into this particular Detah road that he’s asking for. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called.
---Carried
Thank you, committee. Again, we’re on 9-10 in your activity summary, capital estimates. Continuing on with questions on this activity, I have Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to have some final opportunity for a question that I had for the Minister. It’s in regard to the junction on the south side of Fort Providence that leads off to Fort Simpson, then on to Enterprise and on to Hay River. Of course, at this point, it has a gravel quarry and it’s pretty close to a forestry tower. In fact, it’s in earshot from the base of the tower. I just wanted to know what is the status of that quarry and what are the plans for that quarry. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. For that we’ll go to Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Work in quarries, of course, is tied to requirements for gravel related to O and M funding, related to capital funding. In this particular case, because the highway in that area is already chipsealed, it would be related to any capital funding we had in our budget for it. I’m not aware of any specific work in that quarry right now, but we can certainly follow up with the Member and provide him some details on that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That’s all.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Committee, we’re on 9-10, Transportation, activity summary, highways, infrastructure investment summary, infrastructure investments, $86.075 million. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. On page 9-13, Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have a question here. There’s an expenditure for the Motor Vehicle Information System upgrade and I have a recollection that we’ve been doing this for a while, I think. I’d like to ask the Minister if he could advise if this is a multi-year project, is this the second year of a multi-year project or the first year, and if it is only the first year, is it a one-year project. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. For that we’ll go to Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have been working on our Motor Vehicle Information System for several years. The first objective was to get it onto a more stable platform and the next objective was to rebuild the system. We did that module by module, so the new software is now on a stable platform and it is modern and up to date and we can move forward. The way we’d like to move forward is by providing on-line services.
We, in the current fiscal year, are in year two of a two-year project to provide on-line services and we hope later this year to be rolling that out. The biggest on-line service to be provided will be vehicle registrations. There are other things, including scheduling of exams and appointments, and driver abstracts, as well, would be available on-line.
The money that’s in the capital plan here, $650,000, it’s then to do another phase of on-line services. We do want to keep expanding the number of on-line services that we have available to the public. The biggest part of this would be, actually, on-line services rates as commercial vehicles permits and their operators, but there are a number of other different projects there as part of the on-line services.
Only one year is in the capital plan. We still need to work with the CIO, the chief information officer, to solidify our submission so that we can show all three years of that capital plan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Ms. Bisaro.
No, that’s good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Committee, again, 9-13, Transportation, activity summary, road licensing and safety, infrastructure investment summary. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions are related to licences in terms of small communities. Recently it has been brought to my attention that a person did try to, a young person in particular, did try to get their licence on numerous occasions, and the facility that they have on the highways camp is used, and of course, it’s used as the headquarters of the staff, the personnel that work at that camp. The concern that was brought to my attention is that after several attempts, it became very apparent just the distractions of the noise level within that building was perhaps the cause of this student maybe trying for the third time and then finally succeeding to get their licence after about four tries.
The point is that there is a lot of traffic within that little office that they have. Are there, perhaps within the future, plans to perhaps expand that office so that people within the community there could have a proper facility and at least a level of quietness where they could focus and ensuring to get their driver’s licence? Are there plans, perhaps, to maybe have the facility expanded in the future for providing that service? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. For that we’ll go to Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Member for his question. We’ve looked at that facility the Member talks of and we have made some improvements to the facility. I want to assure the Member that some of those improvements have been made. If the Member has specific concerns going forward, I’m more than happy if the Member wants to bring those concerns to our attention. We have no plans to expand the facility, but like I’ve said, we’ve taken some steps to improve things there. If the Member hears any further complaints or concerns, please bring them to our attention and we’d be more than happy to look at those. Thank you.
Can the Minister explain what kind of steps they’ve made to improve the situation? Was there an addition added?
We didn’t do an expansion there, but for the specific improvements – and all I am aware of is there have been some improvements – I’ll go back to the department and we’ll endeavour to get a list of the improvements to the Member.
Again, committee, we are on 9-13, Transportation, activity summary, road licensing and safety, infrastructure investment summary, infrastructure investments, $850,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Committee, if I can get you to return to the department summary page. This is 9-2. Transportation, department summary, infrastructure investment summary, infrastructure investments, $90.4 million.
Agreed.
Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we report progress.
---Defeated
Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to move that the committee defer consideration of the department summary for the Department of Transportation at this time.
