I know that the department in the past has used products call Trembind. I know they ran into problems with it as a dust control suppressant and it had some environmental impacts. Has this EK-35 met all standards we have for any type of environmental assessment that it would not affect or harm any of our wildlife in the communities? Thank you.
The product is approved by Boeing and it doesn’t corrode the aircraft. It is a good product and there should be no problem with it. The other product was used a long time ago and we no longer use it.
Is it safe to say that if I was to look up EK-35 online as a synthetic organic dust control product, it would have no problems whatsoever passing any type of health concerns? Thank you.
There is no indication there are any health concerns on the application of EK-35 on our runways.
I would caution the department, if they can provide the committee any of the facts surrounding the safety of the synthetic organic material called EK-35, my quick research does show that there has been some environmental ecological problems with the product in certain jurisdictions, so I would be inclined to make sure that we are doing our due diligence before we start applying this on all of our highways and our airports.
Will the department commit to providing committee some background in terms of the ecological and environmental safety of this product? Thank you.
We are prepared to do that.
I notice also on here we have a new airport sweeper, obviously for the Yellowknife Airport. I just notice that, not knowing the breakdown, I don’t want to run the competitiveness of any type of bid, what type of valuation do these airport sweepers have in terms of replacement for new? I guess, what is the range of new pricing we may be looking at for this new sweeper? Thank you.
Our current sweeper is 19 years old. We have budgeted $250,000 to replace that sweeper.
The old sweeper that is going to be replaced, does it have any value? Is it going to be re-profiled and used elsewhere in our airport fleet? Thank you.
It is possible that it has some value. It will likely be surplused. If there is some value, it could possibly be moved for use on a smaller strip.
So, it is safe to say that we don’t know if it has any residual value that we are going to be surplusing and selling it, or are we able to bring it up to another airport or maybe use it as a backup? It sounds like a pretty expensive piece of machinery. I don’t think these units… Maybe age might be an issue. I don’t think these units see a lot of traction time. Again, I am just trying to see how, again, repurposing these very expensive pieces of equipment that have very low hours. Thank you.
It was deemed that it was not efficient to continue to run the sweeper. We go through the Department of Public Works and Services, we go through the regular disposal process with the sweeper.
So, what is the normal disposal process?
Like all of the other assets, we would see if the other departments had any use for the asset. If none of the other departments had a use for the asset, the asset could be offered to other organizations, non-profit organizations or other community governments. With no use there, then it would probably be sold in an auction or sold and shipped down to wherever it was purchased.
I know it is another descriptor here in terms of product listing, runway drainage improvement in Hay River. Can you maybe give me an update here, what is the scope of this project and why the need for it? Thank you.
Studies in 2014 suggested there is a subsurface drainage problem that leads to ongoing repairs of the Hay River runway. Replacement and extending the underground drainage system adjacent and parallel to both sides of the runway provide enhanced protection to the runway and adjacent infrastructure. The drainage system is expected to last 20 years.
Is this a repeat problem that we are having in Hay River or is this a one-time event? I am just trying to get the scope. Has this been a repetitive issue with that runway? Thank you.
There is a recurring issue for repairing dips on Hay River Airport every five years. We are thinking that this is a solution to resolve it and end the issue.
So, if we are doing this every so many years, I am assuming this could become a problematic issue. So we are thinking that by just repairing the drainage that we are going to avoid the so-called dips and valleys of this runway. Are there no alternative solutions other than drainage? Is it because it needs to be built up? Does it need a geotextile fabric? Do we need to use another aggregate coating for this runway? Is this just a piecemeal or bandage approach? Is this a permanent fix? Thank you.
We believe it is a drainage problem. At one point we were looking at the possibility that it may be a permafrost issue, but we have determined that it is a drainage problem and we’re convinced that this fix here is going to resolve the issue for at least 20 years, as I indicated.
We know this runway is roughly 1,830 metres in length. If we’re going to be doing this drainage program, which I think it sounds like a fairly large undertaking, is there any consideration of actually increasing the length of this runway to maybe allow for larger planes to land in Hay River? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we have no plans to extend the runway in Hay River. Most of the aircraft that are landing there are much smaller than what the airport can handle. You can land 737s at the Hay River Airport, so there is no plan to extend that airport runway at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Next on the list I have Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to direct your attention to Trout Lake. I know that people are very happy with a much longer runway, but I think there was some remedial work that was done to the slumpage in the springtime, so maybe the Minister could comment on it. I don’t see any capital for ’16-17. Does that mean that the airport settled just great and we’ll have many years of operational life of the current airport? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. New airports, new construction comes with some issues that we usually sort out in the first couple of years. There is nothing that we’re anticipating that can’t be handled with the equipment that is there, with the grader. We know that we didn’t have the money immediately to build the airport terminal building, but we now have the money and we’ll be proceeding with the construction of the ATB.
So, just in terms of integrity of the new airport, it sounds like it all settled out. Certainly residents are very happy to see the new airport terminal building was certainly in the bidding process and look forward to the construction to protect the travelling public during the upcoming winter months. Maybe the Minister can let me know when that’s slated for completion. Just with that, then I have one other thing with regard to the Trout Lake Airport. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The tenders on that have closed. We’re going to award soon. It’s going in on the winter road and we’re going to do the construction as soon as possible after that.
Just with the much larger airport, the Minister was in Trout Lake and one of the needs is a snow blower as opposed to using the graders. That’s one of the requests, is to move towards a snow blower for the community of Trout Lake for their much larger airport. They really feel that they’ll maintain the airport a lot better with a snow blower.
I’d just like to ask, is it on any short-term plan for the community of Trout Lake? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairman, last winter we had provided maintenance at the airport with a grader. We’re going to continue that this coming winter. We thought that it performed well. Snow blowers are an expensive piece of machinery, difficult to maintain and difficult to operate. So, we’re going to continue with this and see how it performs, and then we’ll evaluate. We don’t have a snow blower scheduled for Trout Lake, but we will continue to use equipment we have and continue to evaluate.
Yes, I certainly realize the cost of a brand new snow blower, but I think there may be other ones in the Department of Transportation in other communities or other regions that could be perhaps repurposed to the community of Trout Lake. So I would just ask the Minister to keep that in mind as they evaluate their equipment and the equipment needs. I did speak in the House about it before and I thought there was a solution of an older, not very old, but an older snow blower in another community that could have been purposed over to Trout Lake. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairman, we will continue to monitor the airport with what we have, and it may come to a point if we are unable to maintain the airport with what we have, we may have to bring something else in. At this point I can commit to monitoring it and making sure that we’re in touch with the community, and if the community keeps advising us that things are running okay, then we’ll leave it as is. If it becomes an issue, then we’ll have to deal with it.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Committee, we’re on page 82, airports, infrastructure investments, $1.201 million.
Agreed.
Agreed. Page 84, highways, infrastructure investments, $69.340 million. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess first and foremost there is a number of highway projects here today listed in front of us here, which is good to see. I guess to bring it to a specific question here, all of the construction projects that are listed on the project listing, are those RFP projects or are those negotiated contract projects? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of the projects are negotiated and some are tendered. We have a mix of both types of procurement.
That’s great to know that here, so why don’t I just ask one at a time here. Highway No. 1 reconstruction, negotiated or RFP? Thank you.
Highway No. 1, negotiated; Highway No. 6, negotiated; half of Highway No. 8, negotiated.
I appreciate that. I also see Highway No. 3 and Highway No. 7, if I can get an update as well.
Highway No. 3, Highway No. 4, Highway No. 7 are all tendered.
I appreciate the fact that we are doing a mix of tendered and RFP’d road construction. I know the contractors out there will be much appreciative.
Would we anticipate, should this capital estimates get approved, that this is construction for the upcoming winter season, or is this spring construction for most of these roads? Thank you.
This is a budget to start on April 1, 2016. So we’ll be doing the majority of the construction for this budget in the summer of 2016.
So, we’re doing the budgeting after April 1, 2016, or are we doing the budgeting during the winter months? Can I get clarification on that? Thank you.
We’re in the process now of going through the infrastructure capital. If and when this budget gets approved, this process then is for the 2016-17 construction season. So the majority of the construction will occur in the summer of 2016, or next summer.
I also know that the road that’s on here, which I’ll assume has a large component of budget associated, is the Inuvik-Tuk all-weather highway. Again, we don’t have a breakdown here. We have a full number of $69.340 million. What percentage of this capital estimate is attributed to the Inuvik-Tuk Highway all-weather road in this capital estimate?
Thank you. I would say 42 percent.
Thank you very much. I don’t have my calculator handy. What is that in the dollar figure of this budget? Thank you.
I know that we’ve been through the process, the cash flow with the Inuvik-Tuk Highway; we have $30 million in the cash flow.
