Agreed. Thank you. Land, operations expenditures, informatics, not previously authorized, $432,000.
Agreed.
Operations, not previously authorized, $79,000
Agreed.
Planning and coordination, not previously authorized, $200,000.
Agreed.
Total Department of Lands, total department, not previously authorized, $711,000.
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. Moving on to page 15, Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, regional operations, not previously authorized, $18,000.
Agreed.
School of Community Government, not previously authorized, $5,000.
Agreed.
Total Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, not previously authorized, $23,000.
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. Public Works and Services, operations expenditures, asset management, not previously authorized, negative $198,000.
Agreed.
Directorate, not previously authorized, negative $3,000.
Agreed.
Energy, not previously authorized, negative $1,000.
Agreed.
Total Department of Public Works and Services, not previously authorized, negative $202,000.
Agreed.
Thank you. And our final page, number 17, Transportation, operations expenditures, airports, not previously authorized, $4.646 million. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you Madam Chair. I have a question here around the funding to repair surface depression on runway 10-28 at the Yellowknife Airport. It’s $3 million. Quite often we get funding from the federal government from Transport Canada in order to assist with repairs and extension and so on of our runways. I would like to know whether or not there’s any federal funding that will offset this expenditure of the $3 million. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Not at this point in time. The Department of Transportation, I understand, is going to put in an application, but at this point this is all GNWT money. Thank you.
So, just to clarify, we’re putting in an application, so we may get some money back from the feds but we obviously won’t know that for a while. Is that correct?
Yes, Madam Chair, that is correct.
That’s all I have on airports. I do have a question on highways. Thank you.
Alright. Thank you. So, Transportation, operations expenditures, airports, not previously authorized, $4.646 million. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I did want to follow up there. So, the $3 million is for the Yellowknife Airport and the $1.6 million for Inuvik Airport runway repair are both carried over, so these are issues that have been ongoing. Can I just find out if these are loss of permafrost-type things that are going on?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yellowknife runway was not a carry-over, and yes, there are still some unresolved issues in Inuvik. Some of them are related to permafrost, possible underground streams and such. Thank you.
Thanks for that correction. So the Yellowknife Airport isn’t a new situation. Is that also, do we know, a permafrost thing? It sounds like it is a bigger deal than the Inuvik one. Thank you.
It is not a permafrost issue. There have been some depressions identified in one of the areas that the runway happens to be, so they are trying to sort that out. But I understand it is not a permafrost-related issue. Thank you.
Thank you for that. Just on the Inuvik one, I thought we had repaired that last summer. Did it reopen up in the same area, or is this another area of the airstrip? Is this directly related to the first one? Does it make it a larger issue? I just have to get some context on that. Thank you.
The funding is carried over to deal with the same issue in the same area. It just hasn’t been fully completed. Thank you.
So, the new one that we read about in the paper was a real thing in the same spot. The temporary repairs weren’t sufficient. Is that what I’m hearing? Thank you.
That is correct, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley anything further?
Expenditures, airports, not previously authorized, $4.646 million. Agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you. Corporate services, not previously authorized, $3,000. Agreed?
Agreed.
Highways, not previously authorized, $67,000. Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I have a question with regards to the $57,000 funding for costs associated with monitoring activity on Highway No. 3. I understand that this is federal funding and the background information provided suggests that the Department of Transportation is reviewing a draft report of previous testing on this section of the highway.
Could I get a bit of an update on what this $57,000 is going to be used for? It seems a fair bit of money just to monitor, and if there is a report being reviewed, that suggests to me that the work is already completed. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There is a portion of the highway that had to have appropriate monitoring equipment put in, monitored over specific periods of time, the data collated and they had to do their assessment, with the end result or the goal being to hopefully come up with some potential solutions for that part of the highway.
As it’s noted in here, this money is offset by federal contribution. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Madam Chair, and thanks to the Minister. I appreciate the fact that it is federal money, but just because it is federal money it doesn’t mean that we should spend it on something that isn’t really necessary.
So, if we have a report already, what is it that we are monitoring? Can I get an explanation of the work? Was the report done on a period of work that is now completed and we are doing further work that is being measured and monitored? It’s not clear to me why we are still continuing to spend money when a report has been done. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Aumond.
