Agreed.
We will move on to the next page which is 9-7, Department of Transportation, activity summary, marine, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $300,000.
Agreed.
We will move on to the next page which is going to be highways, page 9-10, Transportation, activity summary. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, in regard to the Access Road Program -- and I know I’ve raised this before -- it comes in different types of access road. You have the upgrade to the road to connect communities such as the road to Nahanni Butte. You have the expansion of what used to be the Community Access Road Program which was used to put the road into Jean Marie. There again, it’s another access road construction program. Then, also, you have the Access Road Program in regard to the Tuk access road program.
Again, I think that this issue has been around as long as I’ve been here, going back to the 13th Assembly. The whole idea of having the community access road was mostly for the communities in the Eastern Arctic so that they can access traditional areas close to their communities by way of fishing spots or, basically, recreation areas or even areas just to get out of the community.
I think that this government has to, you know, we talk about having a Highway Strategy, we have strategies in place. I’d just like to ask the Minister, I know that the Minister stated that they don’t really have a program for that, but we have programs which are similar to what we’re talking about but we use a different method of achieving it.
Again, I’ll refer to the Nahanni Butte road program to connect that community to a highway. I mean, we can use that same argument in regard to the road to Tuk, which we’ve used. I can use the same argument in regard to Aklavik, from Aklavik connecting them to the Dempster Highway. We’re able to achieve it in some communities, but we don’t really have a program like the Minister mentioned.
I’d just like to ask the Minister, knowing it is definitely from the expression of interest by Members and also this program has been around, like I mentioned, since the 13th Assembly, it’s very important to rural and remote communities that we continue to expand the program. But the whole program, it was sort of watered down over the years and now the Community Access Program is $50,000 a year up to $450,000. I mean, because it’s so limited, I mean, you couldn’t get two loads of gravel for $50,000 in some communities. I think, if anything, it’s unproductive by the way it was achieved, but yet we’re able to achieve results using different methods.
So I’m just wondering from the Minister, do we actually have a framework or detail of a program that meets what we’re talking about here in the House in regard to achieving the same results in regard to connecting communities to highways, connecting communities to resource rich areas, mining areas or even tourism potential areas? Because it seems like we’re coming at it from all angles but we’re talking about the same thing. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll provide a little bit of background on the Access Road Program. Within the Department of Transportation we do have a Community Local Access Road Program. It’s in our O and M. It’s been mentioned here. There’s about $300,000 in that budget. It allows us to provide contributions to half a dozen or eight communities, about $40,000 a year. Its main purpose is to provide funding to communities in the form of contributions so that they can construct a trail or an access road to a nearby attraction, recreation area, traditional area, that kind of thing. The Member is correct; funding for that is very limited. It’s generally oversubscribed and hard to get a lot of work done for $40,000, but we have made some good progress over a number of years working with communities.
In terms of the access road projects that are within the capital plan, those actually came out of a special initiative of the 15th Legislative Assembly when there was some capital funding identified for public highway access roads; specifically, Nahanni Butte, Hay River Reserve and Jean Marie River. There are still some remnants of the capital dollars in the budget here. Nahanni Butte, we were hoping it would be done this year. We got a little bit of weather challenges at the end, but it should be done early next year. It has a little bit of cleanup work to do, so there’s still some ongoing capital here. Same with Hay River Reserve, there’s still some more work to do on that. In Jean Marie, just because of the standard that it’s constructed, we do need a modest amount of capital every year to keep that project going, to keep the road going.
In terms of gravel access, there is no program in DOT for constructing gravel access roads. We do work with Public Works and Services, with the Housing Corporation and the communities to coordinate the gravel requirements of the various GNWT departments. We work with communities so that we can provide a coordinated project when that makes sense to do that. But within DOT we certainly do take care of our own gravel needs. We have many of those for our highway system and then for our airports.
The Tuk gravel access road, again, it was a special initiative of the 16th Assembly. We were able to identify some funding under the Build Canada. We did have the strong support of Members to move forward with that. We, as a department, were very interested, because it is on the future Mackenzie Valley road alignment and we saw it as another positive way to demonstrate the government’s support to that, building the road. Thank you.
In regard to the comments from the deputy minister, it’s clearly illustrated that if a program is overprescribed, that tells me that people very much want access to the program and, if anything, if a program is overprescribed, don’t you think that we should be putting more resources into that program, increase the amount of money we spend in the program and increase the threshold so it can really accomplish what we’re trying to do? Like I say, this issue has been here as long as I have, going back to the 13th Assembly. Again, it has always come to this Legislature year after year after year, but yet we’re still not really able to receive the maximum benefit out of it.
Again, with the comments from the deputy minister about having a program which has been overprescribed, is there any possibility of expanding the resource injection into that program either through the Department of Finance or the Minister of Transportation and realize that this is a critical program that has been in high demand over the years and still is? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe there will be an opportunity tomorrow night with the meeting of the Rural and Remote communities to look at that as one of the possible options for recommendation. Thank you.
Just on another issue in regard to the talk about the Mackenzie Valley all-weather road. You talked about environmental engineering and alignment options. I’m just wondering on the question of various, what’s the capital injection or what we’re looking at by way of expenditures in that area for this work. Do you have any idea how much money we’re talking about to do the work that’s going to be needed to achieve that objective? Are we doing any research and development by way of trying to develop it? Because it is mentioned under various so I’m just wondering if it’s a territorial program.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, the work that needs to be done in terms of PDR is roughly $8 million. We need an additional $7 million and we have identified a million dollars in this budget. If the Member is actually asking about the capital estimate to do an actual Mackenzie Valley all-weather road, we’re probably looking anywhere from $1.8 billion to $2 billion. Thank you.
Just on that, I’d just like to ask exactly what is the relationship between this department and the so-called MAC Group which is looking at a similar objective but they’re looking at...What are we doing to work with our partners to try to achieve this and also being able to leverage more federal funding or by way of some sort of a partnership arrangement to meet the final goal of eventually seeing a highway down the Mackenzie?
Mr. Chairman, the relationship we have with the MAC Group is through the Gwich’in Tribal Council and the president. They have had some discussions with myself and also with some of our staff and demonstrated an interest in doing some of the project description report work that we’d like to see done that’s within their traditional area. They have indicated to us that they are getting close to some kind of agreement that would see some investment from the federal government and they’ve asked us to stay in touch with them or to see if we’d be interested. I believe our Premier has given them a letter agreeing that we would work with them on this stretch of road.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to start with the access road to Dettah. I’m wondering if the Minister could provide me with an update on what is being achieved this year and what the budget will cover for next year. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have a total of $4 million for the Dettah access road this year and next. It’s to be provided under the Build Canada Plan, so we just received official approval of that this summer. That did put us a bit behind the ball to get work underway, but we have hired a consulting engineering company to help us with the engineering work on the road and that is being undertaken now. We also have been talking to the Yellowknives Dene and their economic development branch to talk about possibilities of developing a pit that we can use for granular production. We do think that that would be moved forward and then we would look at producing some material this year. Then next year, with the funding in the budget here, we would apply that to the resurface and see if we can actually get a chipseal on at the end of the day too. Thank you.
That sounds like wonderful news. Just to confirm, we’re talking about restructuring the Dettah road to the point where we can responsibly chipseal it. Is that correct?
Yes, our objective at the end of the day is to have a chipsealed surface. Prior to doing that, we do need to make sure that there’s enough structural strength in the road so that we don’t lose the chipseal surface again as has happened in the past. So there is quite a bit of expenditures, quite a bit of work to do just to increase the strength. We’re not sure how far the $4 million is actually going to get us yet. I mentioned the engineering work is still underway, but certainly our objective, our hope is that we’ll be able to provide a chipseal over the entire length. We’ll see how the engineering goes and how the contract prices come in to determine the full scope of the work there. Thank you.
That’s an amazing turnaround from what I had been told previously. Somehow we’re getting a cost efficiency of about 300 percent, which is wonderful news.
The Minister committed to me some time ago in the House that he would provide me with the plan and the full costing for the entire reconstruction of the Dettah road in preparation for chipsealing. I’ve never received that, but I understand from Mr. Neudorf that perhaps that work is still going on. I’d be happy to provide Hansard, if that’s of interest, but I’m still very interested in that and I’m encouraged to hear that perhaps we can do it with $4 million, which would be amazing but wonderful. I think the expectation is that it would be done in a way that would last longer than the two weeks it lasted the last time. So I appreciate that. Perhaps, if there are any comments there before I continue, I’d appreciate hearing them now. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Michael McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, the commitment still stands. The detail that we are looking for hasn’t been compiled to a point where we’d be able to share it with the Member. We are looking at ways and trying to be very creative. The engineering work is being done. We are looking at ways to stabilize the base. We’re looking at the cost factor and we’ve got to recognize that there was a change in leadership over this past while that kind of slowed things down. I say that because there had been some discussion as to their own priorities and we also had some discussion with a partner or our stakeholder and they don’t have a direct equity interest in the project, but it’s a mining company that wanted to explore the possibilities of working with the community and possibly assisting us in that area. So those discussions are ongoing and we’d be pleased to share that as soon as we have enough information put together as something that’s concrete and move ahead. Thank you.
I appreciate the Minister’s comments on that. Indeed there has been a change in leadership in all parties involved, I think, over the course so far and I really do appreciate this department working with the community of Dettah and other partners in getting this going. It sounds like there are some good efficiencies to be had there.
I know there’s been some research done, I think, or perhaps it’s just being done on the impact of climate change and I’ve never been able to determine the real objectives of it on Highway No. 3 so that we can improve how we do rehabilitation of that and so on. I’m just wondering if there are any results yet from that research or if I’ve got the timing of it wrong. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first pot of money that we’re using to do some climate change related research is underneath the Build Canada Plan. We have allocated a portion of that funding for research and development and focus on climate change. So a total of $1.85 million over seven years. It’s an O and M item.
We talked about a number of the projects that are underway, one of which is just a vulnerability assessment for the highway. We also have a project in the capital plan here for Highway No. 3. We have, this summer, hired an engineering consulting company to do some additional work for us, quite an extensive study looking at all the different conditions that that highway is in right now and will be subjected to in the future with the objective of ensuring that we have the most appropriate plan from a cost perspective, from an operation perspective, from a safety perspective, the most effective plan going forward so that we can provide a good, safe highway for the users of it. That work is still underway, as I mentioned. It started probably a couple of months ago. So there’s not any results for it yet.
I appreciate those comments and that update. My last question here is we seem to be getting pretty wet seasons and certainly our falls have become quite wet compared to what they used to be with a lot of freeze/thaw cycles to it. We’ve had a good amount of work going with the Ingraham Trail, some work on the Dettah road and the Highway No. 3 and so on. Are there any observations or insights being collected on what this means to the cost of our capital projects and transportation in the Yellowknife region? Thank you.
As a department we’ve actually noticed changes in the weather for the last 15 to 20 years and have been undertaking quite a number of different things to address that, ranging from constructing bridges on the Mackenzie Valley winter road to spray ice in enhanced effort to construct ice bridges both on the Dempster and on the Fort Providence crossing, to changing our O and M practices and devoting a lot more energy and effort into O and M of the highway and particularly at this time of year where we are.
In the past you would have very few freeze/thaw cycles, but lately it seems to us and we’re seeing it in the actual on the groundwork that we are needing to provide a lot more effort in terms of maintaining the highways and maintaining the airports and providing a lot more consumables. So a lot more sand and gravel and the types of products that are required for getting good friction on our surfaces.
So we’ve made a number of changes over the years on that side of things and in our O and M activities, including increasing budgets and including expanding the services that we provide. So in the wintertime our O and M highway forces are on staff for seven days a week and 12 hours a day each day.
Capital projects, as we look at those projects and we do the design, climate change is one of the factors that is considered in that. I think that that’s perhaps still a little bit evolving in terms of what that actually means. We do hope that some of the research that is underway that we, as a department, want to undertake and that we are working with other jurisdictions to address will be able to help us guide that even more in the future. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is more in regard to the bridges in the Northwest Territories. It seems we’ve put a lot of focus on the bridges in the Mackenzie Valley. I mean the issue on that one was mostly around environmental liability issues in regard to Fisheries and Oceans and also extending the seasons for those roads. I know I’ve mentioned it in this House before. Have we looked at the possibility of replacing our ferry operations with permanent bridges so that we can get that 12 month a year access?
Also, looking at the studies, I know using the Peel River there were studies back in the ‘60s where they did some studies with Public Works Canada and again back in the mid-‘80s again with Public Works Canada. I think as a department we seem to be not really looking at the long-term costs of replacing the ferries versus the cost at some point of putting permanent bridges in place like we’ve done in the Sahtu. I think that we have enough expertise now over the years of looking at bridges. Like you say with regards to Blackwater, it’s a $50 million bridge. I think we have to start looking at that aspect of it.
From the research I’ve done, a lot of the engineering and design work was done back in the ‘60s where a lot of the information available today on even the locations that they had for crossings where they did for studies is not ideal for a bridge.
So I’d like to ask the department in regard to planning dollars and money that you have, is there any possibility of any investment research funds looking at core sampling or looking at locations such as the Peel River to see where the ideal location will be and trying to find out if it’s economically viable to do those studies to see exactly where the best economy crossing would be if you ever had to put a bridge in place knowing that the site that’s there right now is not ideal for a bridge?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate your comments. The Member has raised the potential of a Peel River bridge on a number of different occasions. In terms of providing bridges where we have ferries right now, the first point I guess is that those are very expensive propositions. The Peel River bridge, our estimate is $70 million to replace that. So that would be a significant challenge to overcome. There were a number of engineering, geotechnical and environmental studies done when the Dempster was being constructed, when the Mackenzie Valley Highway was being constructed at all of the ferry crossings. That’s been good background information as we move forward on the Deh Cho Bridge. It’s also being used to guide our discussions on the Peel River bridge. So we have taken a look at that and then we updated that to come up with the revised $70 million number. We’ve also taken a preliminary look at what the potential financing of that might be and that information has been shared with the Member. Thanks.
I also got some research done in that area. Number one, the location where the Peel Crossing is and where they were talking about the crossing, that one side alone, you have to go down 180 feet in order to hit bedrock. That is the reason that it is so costly. That’s why I am saying that in order to make it economically viable, you have to have an ideal location where you can cross the river. There is a location upstream from the existing site and all we are asking the department to do is to do a bunch of core sampling to see if that is a more ideal position than what you are looking at. That one peer alone, where I mentioned, is 180 feet down. It’s going to cost $7 million. Just by that alone, the economics are not there. You have to look at a different location from where the existing ferry crossing is now in order to make the bridge economically viable. They have been looking at the numbers. You talk $70 million. The number I got from the private sector is $48 million. So there is a little difference between 70 and 48. I think like with anything with government, if government builds it, it’s going to cost a lot more.
Again, we talked about P3 money, there is a $50 million potential out there looking at a P3 project, replacement cost for ferry operations. You look at the cost for ice roads. You look at the cost in association with infrastructure, traffic, future pipelines and whatnot. The volumes are going to go up and the economics could be there.
Without these tests, I would like to ask would the department consider looking at $100,000 or a $75,000 investment to do some of the core sampling so we can identify the possibility of another ideal site or location which will make the economics more viable? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think all the Members in the House recognize the cost of building bridges are very extreme and it certainly would be a fiscal challenge for our government to actually finance and provide the resources to build one bridge in the typical fashion required for building a bridge.
We have considered, as part of what would be a Mackenzie Valley Highway, that the bridges along that route would be covered and part of the road, if there was ever federal resources to build that road. We do have, as the Member has indicated, expertise on a lot of the aspects of building bridges. We just don’t have the dollars to do so.
There has been a lot of work that has been done, as the Member has referenced, in the ‘60s and ‘70s on all the major crossings. We have that information. There has also been other work on ice floes and ice patterns and breakup that has been studied and that information is available.
The Mackenzie Valley winter road has seen a lot of investment over the last while. That was as a result over federal programs that were available that targeted resource development areas and it allowed us to build quite a few bridges; 34 I think the last count was. As the Member has again indicated, some bridges along our highway transportation systems such as the Liard, the Ndulee, the Peel and the Tsiigehtchic crossing that don’t have a mechanism to finance, we, of course, would be happy if there was some way to do it, but at this point fiscally it will be a challenge. We don’t have the resources in our own coffers. Even if we do look at the P3 program, the P3 program would require some significant capital. It would only pay for the direct costs. So anything leading up to the actual construction would have to be covered by the proponent or a partner. We haven’t been able to identify that partner or the resources as of yet to take advantage of that program for any of the bridges that have been identified. Thank you.
I believe we do have some perfect avenues to take. We have the Deh Cho Bridge Act to fall onto or whatever it is. It is in the process and legislation has passed in this House to take a look at that concept of building a bridge. We have the P3 policy that we are considering looking at with federal investment partnerships. I think that sometimes we have to think of unique ways of achieving these results. At the end of the day, in closing, I would just like to ask the Department of Transportation...This summer alone the ferry crossing on the Peel, because of flash floods or basically major rainstorms in the mountains, caused the ferry to shut down and there is a lot of concern by the residents of Fort McPherson and the people about the fish in that area. That the amount of gravel that is put into that river year after year after year, and having to replace that gravel every time you have a major flood, those materials, what effect is it having on the fish habitat? What effect is it having in regards to navigable waters?
I think that we, at the end of the day, have to realize that there is a liability associated with continuing to run ferry operations, and realizing that we are having more severe flooding, that we are seeing more severe situations by way of having to close the ferry down because of simple high water, driftwood and everything else. We have to look at the possibility that at some point facing the piper in regards to having to realize that there is a liability associated with running ferry operations and what is the cost of that liability versus the environmental costs and the political and social costs to the communities that are seeing these implications. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, it is very hard to challenge the Member’s comments. There is a liability issue on any of our crossings. It has to be recognized that there is a contribution to the effects of greenhouse gases. Operating these vessels consume a lot of fuel. We have looked at and considered all the bridges within our road system and have looked at trying to be creative and find ways to construct bridges or replace the ferry systems with bridges.
The Deh Cho Bridge Project is a project that was viable because of the traffic volumes and, more specifically, the traffic volumes to the mines. We don’t have that in other areas of the Territory. That may change in the future. We are always looking for opportunity and looking for federal investment and we continue to raise those issues. We will continue to push those forward.
The Peel River, as the Member has indicated, had concerns raised by the community, by a lot of his constituents that do use that area for traditional harvesting of fish and we have had some discussion with the Member and the leadership of his communities to see if we can find a way to offset the amount of gravel that is used to firm up the approaches. We agreed to do that. We are going to be applying to the water board for a new water licence this year, so I don’t think...We have already been put on notice that we need to do a better job. We have already agreed. We have engaged the assistance of an engineer to design something that would work on the Peel that would allow the vehicles to have a firm approach so that we don’t have to use as much gravel or we don’t have to use any gravel in terms of firming up the approach. It is my understanding that we are getting there.
My department has already looked at some sketches that would have a design of some combination of steel and concrete that could be moved as the water levels fluctuate, and I am quite confident that we will have something that we can bring to the community and share that information with them so that we will remove at least that part of the concern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you Minister McLeod. We are on to page 10, Transportation, activity summary, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the Minister in terms of safety on the winter roads. There is 800 kilometres of winter roads between Wrigley and Colville Lake and the Minister, in the past, has indicated that safety measures were being done on the winter road by placing safety signage posts along the road. I witnessed this last winter, the contractors being out. Still there continues to need to be more signage on the roads, grade improvements on the roads, widening and realignment of the roads and I would ask the Minister that this work continue on for several more years in terms of improvements in safety until we get a Mackenzie Valley Highway built and to continue improving the safety as more and more vehicles are being used on the roads and younger and younger generations of people are using these roads. I think because the contractors have done such a good job on building these roads, that they drive pretty fast. That is the curse of having good contractors working on the winter roads, so I hope they continue working on the great improvements and safety of the winter roads.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. McLeod.
This is an issue that I think the Member has raised every year from the time he was elected in this position. It is certainly an area that we have worked towards improving. I think that we have spent more than $5 million in a number of key improvements and along the Mackenzie Valley winter road. We have, at his request, looked at putting a number of signs along the winter road so that the traffic could be informed of corners and hills and we also overall wanted to have a stronger presence with our highway enforcement officers and highway patrols and changed our permitting system and have replaced a lot of our highway patrol officers that were issuing permits at the weigh scales, to clerks and admin staff, so that our people could be out there and have a stronger presence. I think that is going to be reflected in the increased number of patrols along the Mackenzie Valley winter road system starting from now on.
The Minister is correct that the department has shifted some of its focus onto the safety of the passengers in the Sahtu region on the winter road and they certainly appreciate the winter road improvements. I would ask the Minister if he would be open to having his staff talk to some of the local contractors in terms of some of the areas that they could certainly improve on, realignment, grade improvement, there are certainly discussions. We have driven the road, we know the road and certainly the department has some of the expertise to put to use, so I wonder if we could work in collaboration as to which areas we feel needs to be improved by widening, realigning, cutting down some of the grades and use some of our expertise, traditional knowledge as to what part of the season is the best to do this work. Sometimes it is best to do it in the winter and sometimes it is more advantageous to do this in the summertime, so if we could have that kind of open discussion. Thank you.
We would be pleased to continue our consultations with the communities and also the contractors. We plan to continue with our grade improvements, working on the alignment and also with the signs. We have done a lot of work in the area with erosion controls at some of the crossings. We have also looked at doing additional clearing and other improvement work at some of the tighter corners and some of the areas that we need more visibility in terms of sight distances, and places that would allow for vehicles to pull over. We would be more than happy to talk to the contractors as we engage with the communities for our consultation. Thank you.
The one concern, that I know the department has been in discussions with the leadership in Deline is the realignment of the road from the mouth of Great Bear Lake and Bennett Field, specifically at the mouth of Great Bear Lake where there is a burial site and the department has been talking with the community in terms of moving the road off the area where the burial site is. I know the Minister has had his staff go to Deline and are going to do work.
My understanding is there was some discussion as to how soon this can get done. My previous discussion with some of the officials is that they were waiting for Nahanni access road construction to be completed before they get into the Deline road construction, so I just want to make sure that this isn’t the case and that they will continue to work with Deline and they will work on a time schedule that the Deline winter road realignment project will proceed and not wait until the Nahanni access road program is done to move equipment into the Sahtu from the Nahendeh in terms of the Department of Transportations’ aspect. We certainly want to see mostly our equipment being used, rather than having the Department of Transportation equipment. It makes sense to have our own equipment there.
Mr. Chairman, we plan to move ahead with the realignment as planned. We have had consultation with the communities. We have talked about the areas of concern for a number of years. Two issues were raised. There is the burial grounds at the mouth of the Great Bear Lake where the ice takes a long time to form. We have planned and designed a route so that we can have the road avoid the burial grounds and so that it crosses a location where the ice is thicker and freezes sooner, so I think we have dealt with all the concerns and our plan is to go ahead as we had discussed with the community.
I am certainly pleased to hear from the Minister in terms of their plan to go ahead with the Deline realignment of the road project and certainly the people from Deline will be happy to hear that.
Another issue that I want to just touch on which Mr. Krutko, the MLA from the Delta, talked about is the bridging programs. Certainly one that we in the Sahtu are looking forward to, specifically in Norman Wells and the hamlet of Tulita was looking at the Bear River bridge. This somehow has become a challenge for this government and this department as to how you put together a package to make a project go of this size.
Certainly Mr. Krutko has given some discussion as to the bridge that he would like to see in the Mackenzie Delta. There are similar wishes of the people of the Sahtu to see a bridge at Bear River also happen. At the same time, you look at the challenges of Great Bear Lake where there is climate change and thinning of the ice, and I know that in future there is going to be discussion as to a bridge up on the Bear River further up to the mouth of Bear Lake in terms of that situation; to go back to the Bear River bridge in terms of seeing if there is any type of further funding to make this bridge a reality.
I want to ask the Minister the department’s plans in terms of constructing bridges along the Mackenzie River. He talked about 30 bridges. We certainly see the benefits of having these bridges now in the Mackenzie Valley and we certainly want to see the Bear River bridge be one that can be constructed or one that could be at least funded in the life of this government.
Mr. Chairman, this bridge is a project that has been in the works for some time. At one point it was up for consideration for investment, however, the project costs came back with a dollar figure that was more than double what the budget was set at and in 2008 that budget was estimated to be $60 million. It is a project that would probably eliminate one of the bigger obstacles of the opening of the Mackenzie Valley winter road. We have looked at pots of money that we thought we could tap into. We raised it a number of times in meetings with Canada and the reason for raising it, of course, is because it is a project that is already packaged and ready to go. The design is done. The calculation, all the technical aspects are completed. The federal government has indicated they are currently unwilling to fund this project, this bridge. It certainly is beyond the means of our department to find $60 million from within. The project would have to stay and be considered as we move forward with the construction whenever there is a construction plan for the Mackenzie Valley Highway. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. We are on page 9-10, Transportation, activity summary, highways. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just on the Bear River bridge, has the department given any consideration to ask the federal government, the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation or the Minister of Finance within the federal government if there was a project somewhere in Canada that somehow didn’t make it or had some cancellation, can this bridge be considered as a possibility for funding, seeing if this bridge could get some support from the feds?
