Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The increase in landing fees is going to bring it to average to an airport the size of the Yellowknife airport, and that will be a $20 increase for IRF for going south and a $10 IR fee for going north. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just for clarification, those numbers that the Minister shared, are those on one-way travel or is someone expected, for example leaving Yellowknife to Fort Smith return, is that a $10 fee or is that a total of $20 there? Similarly moving south, if you're going from Yellowknife to Edmonton return, is that a $20 fee or is that a $40 fee? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those fees only apply to one-way out of Yellowknife. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Vanthuyne.
So, again, just for clarification, and sorry if I'm not understanding fully, if someone is flying from another jurisdiction into Yellowknife, those fees would not apply. Is that correct?
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess for clarity, if it's a return ticket going to Edmonton and back you only get charged a $20 fee. If you're going within the Northwest Territories, it's a $10 fee no matter if it's a return ticket or a one-way ticket. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can the department give a little bit further explanation around why these numbers were determined? I mean, I appreciate the Minister's comment as it relates to other jurisdictions having similar-sized airports, but I think that clearly we are in a very unique situation, especially being in a northern remote area, that we have to be very prudent and understanding of the effects that these types of fees can have on cost of living. I'm not suggesting that I'm opposed to the fees, but trying to capture 100 per cent cost recovery for maintenance and O and M operations of the airport right out of the gate is going to have some degree of sticker shock. And quite frankly I feel that people are going to really feel this effect in their pocketbook. Can the Minister maybe explain a little bit more why we're coming out with fees that seem to be fairly high, and why we wouldn't try to maybe get a 25 per cent or 50 per cent cost recovery on our airport operations at first? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can see the Member's point, but we're just moving these fees to just to be the average. There is a number of other airports that charge a larger amount than we're proposing coming out of the gate. Going south, that's an average of 3.4 per cent we believe will be the increased cost of travelling on your ticket, and on a northern ticket it would be approximately one per cent. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Often, a lot of other jurisdictions are putting fees on their tickets because they have a particular project or an airport expansion, or what have you, that they're trying to pay for. And respectfully, we don't seem to have that. This is one that's going to be introduced for perpetuity to help operate the airport independently from having to be subsidized by tax dollars as it currently is. I'm of the opinion that, if you're not trying to pay for a project or an airport expansion that would have a definite beginning and a definite end, then a fee of this nature and at this significant increase right out of the -- right at the beginning is going to have a fairly traumatic effect on folks as it relates to their pocketbook and the cost of living, which we're trying to reduce. And so I guess the question to the department is, you know, have they given consideration on what effects this might have on the cost of living and would there be any consideration maybe toward, you know, capturing maybe 50 per cent of the cost of operation of the airport rather than trying to do 100 per cent cost recovery right out of the gate? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just so we can make some clarity on some stuff, the AIF portion of the ticket will be going towards capital for the airport, and the other fees will be going towards O and M of the airport. To explain to the department why we're doing this, part of this is the fiscal situation that the GNWT is in, and this was one of the opportunities to raise some revenue. It's been looked at for a number of different Assemblies, and with the fiscal challenges that we are facing here lately, this was an opportunity for us that we thought we would bring this in to help offset some of the costs of running the airport. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. At this point, no further questions. I'll let others ask. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Further questions? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. There seems to be a lot of numbers being thrown around in terms of predictions of revenues and so on. Does the Minister actually have a business case, or the projections? I guess, because -- yes, does the Minister have a business case and can he share that with the Regular MLAs? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are currently working on a business case and we will be willing to share that with the Members when we have that finished. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Glad to get that commitment out of the Minister. Any idea as to when we might see the business case? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are working on it and hopefully we'll be able to present it to the Members later this summer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. I think part of the difficulty is going to be I think the department is bringing forward legislations to set this up, and to properly communicate and allow the standing committee to do its work, having the business case sooner than later would be very helpful. Because I do think that there needs to be a lot more communication done on this. The summer is a long time. Is it something that we can expect sooner than later? Because if the committee is going to do a good job looking at the legislation that's going to come forward for this, we need to know what the numbers are, and the public needs to know what the numbers are. So can the Minister give us a little bit more firm date than summer? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. You're more optimistic about the length of summer than I am. Minister Schumann.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the things that we're also doing with this business case is we're already out doing consultation on this initiative, and that's some stuff that we'll be putting together as well. As far as the business case and getting it to committee sooner than later, I can't tell you the exact date, I know it's probably in draft form already, so as soon as we can get it done, sooner the better, we'll get it to the Members. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess I just want to add my voice to my colleague about phasing in of rates or fees rather than trying to do it all at once. I think that it will have greater public acceptance. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. More of a comment. Would the Minister like to respond?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll just take it as a comment, thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Anything further from Mr. O'Reilly? Seeing nothing further, Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just looking at the transfer payments there from the federal government in the upper page category there. And I'm looking at particularly the -- it's probably a one-time contribution here of $319 in the last fiscal year for the permafrost research study in the Inuvik section area. Is there any current study dollars there for the next phase, the next proposed project investment there, the Norman Wells/Wrigley Highway section? Preconstruction study dollars, if you want to call it that, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The money referred to here was for some one-time funding that we received from Transport Canada. It was to construct a couple of test sections on the Inuvik-Tuk Highway, test sections so that we can test some different construction techniques and how they perform in areas with permafrost.
As the Member had indicated, we do continue to also promote the next section of the Mackenzie Valley Highway, the section from Wrigley to Norman Wells. We have a proposal in with the federal government, a business case for that for $700 million to construct that section. We're really still in the early stages talking about the financing of it. We would hope that, you know, if we do get a positive signal, that part of what we would be doing there is of course ensuring that we're protecting the permafrost as much as we can during construction. Then looking for whatever opportunities there are to do some addition research as well, but that will come later. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there current applications from this government to the federal government for those types of preconstruction studies in that Wrigley/Norman Wells section? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're looking for whatever opportunities might exist related to continuing to promote the Mackenzie Valley Highway. As I indicated before, we do have a $700 million proposal for construction. That's obviously a significant ask, and so it will take some time for the federal government to respond.
In the meantime, we have submitted the project description report to start the environmental assessment, that is underway but is slowed down a little bit because we need to do some additional studies, additional engineering, environmental studies and we're looking for funding to obtain that as well. Finally we do have a bit of a demonstration project I guess to start Mackenzie Valley Highway from Normal Wells south to Canyon Creek, about a $20 million project that we're pursuing underneath the Building Canada Plan and the funding that we have there. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Nothing further from Mr. McNeely.
Question on page 406? Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, my question is for the line of the new highway corridor, Planning Infrastructure Canada. And maybe the line below that as well too, the Inuvialuit implementation Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk Highway. My question to the Minister is are there plans to… like the opening of the highway is going to be a big thing, it's not just for Canada, but for North America as well too, we're connecting coast to coast to coast -- and I'm just curious if there's any plans for the GNWT to work alongside with Inuvialuit and the federal government on plans for the opening of the highway in preparation? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. Minister Schumann.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, the department is working with the federal government on that exact thing. As the federal government's contributed two-thirds to this project, I'm sure they're going to want to be a part of this grand opening and make sure everything is in place to celebrate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Schumann. Mr. Nakimayak.
Yes, just one more comment to that, Mr. Chair. I encourage the Minister to work with myself, Inuvialuit and the federal government as we move closer to this as it'll become a big logistical project as we move closer towards the opening. I appreciate the comments, thanks.
