Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier, and it comes down to a question of fairness. Over the years, as long as I’ve been here and as long as the Premier’s been here, I’ve been asking questions about developing road connections from Aklavik to the Dempster Highway, and also trying to find ways we can do that. I was always told that the only way you’d be able to do that is to be part of the Highway Strategy in the Northwest Territories. In order to make that grid, you have to be part of the strategy.
Yet I seem to see a lot of initiatives that aren’t even in the strategy, and also new initiatives that are coming this way. I find there are projects in place where communities have roads being built into their communities — communities which are not part of the NWT Highway Strategy.
I’d like to ask the Minister if this government is being fair when projects that are not part of the NWT strategy are being put into place without developing around the strategy this government has in place and which is fair to everyone.
The Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.
As the Member has highlighted, the fact is that we do work around our Capital Acquisition Plan, the strategies that are in place. There have been quite a number of them laid out. From time to time we do update them, or the focus becomes around communities instead of territory-wide initiatives.
We will work with communities as we have in the past. Some communities, for example, have gone out and done their own studies or cost-benefit analyses and even some design work, and then we sit down and have those sorts of discussions.
We’re prepared to sit down with communities and do some work together, whether it’s cost sharing or looking at some of these new initiatives that may come forward, and at that point — once we have that type of information — look at how we can put it into our Capital Acquisition Plan.
The point I’m trying to make is that we have all these different programs. In the case of my community I was told the only program out there is the community access road project, which is about $50,000 a year and capped at $450,000. You can’t really do much with that, yet you see communities where you’re building roads in excess of $4 million or $5 million that are basically being paid by this government. I’m being told that in order to get your project, you have to come up with half the money.
I’m just wondering where the consistency in this government is with regard to fairness for communities. You have roads being built into communities at no cost to the communities but are being told that if you want the road, you have to come up with half. Where’s the fairness in that?
There are a number of different initiatives, whether within our own government or agreements we end up signing or that flow through with the federal government. For example, the Building Canada Fund has a cost-sharing process that we have to match, or the project has to match, going forward.
We have some initiatives within our own policies of cost-sharing arrangements with communities. It depends on which project it actually aligns with — whether it’s the Building Canada Fund or our own Capital Acquisition Plan. There is no hard and fast line, for example, to say every project has to have a 50/50 share. I’ve spoken with the Minister of Transportation to come up with a cost-sharing arrangement with, for example, the community of Aklavik on a study they can do to come up with the actual financial analysis that’s needed to move this to the next stage.
Again, the point I’m trying to make is that there are projects in place right now in the capital budget where they’re going into communities. You’re building roads into communities, and basically, the government is paying 100 per cent of the cost. I’d just like to know exactly why it is that communities are being treated differently where now, in order to get a road built, you have to come up with half the funds, but in the capital budget right now before this House we are paying to build roads into communities.
In the tight financial frame we’re in, one of the processes that allows us to move projects ahead would be if there’s a cost-sharing arrangement. The only project where we talk about a 50/50 arrangement is, in fact, one that was discussed in this House, which is the Yellowknife bypass road. We’re looking for cost-sharing arrangements, and in fact, there’s been that discussion with the gravel-source 177 discussions with the community of Tuktoyaktuk. This one here, as the Member has highlighted a number of times, has been raised politically a number of times, but there hasn’t been that cost-benefit process. We’re prepared to sit down and share with the community on putting that one in place so we can move it to the next stage so then it can come into the plan.
We also have to recognize that the Building Canada Fund, for example, that’s triggered a number of these projects…. We’re waiting for the final agreement to be signed with the federal government. They’re having a say as to what actually goes or doesn’t go as part of that package.
It is a seven-year process. We’ll have an opportunity to continue to work with that process as we proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The road from Aklavik to the Dempster Highway…. There’s a motion passed by the Beaufort-Delta leaders going back to 1991. I believe I’ve moved motions in this House and have supported motions on the floor in regard to this. This item has been on the radar for quite a few years, yet I don’t know if we’ll ever see the light of day under the process we’re using where the rules change every time you try to do something. One group gets it free and the other group has rules attached to getting something.
I’d just like to ask the Premier exactly what we are doing to connect communities, which is a priority of this 16th Assembly, to improve access to our communities.
Again, for clarity, the fact is that some of these communities that have pursued initiatives have spent their own money on coming up with their plans and cost-benefit analyses and so on. We realize that in other communities, they don’t have that flexibility, so we’re ready through the Department of Transportation to look at an arrangement where we can help get to the next stage.
The fact is that when we talk about connecting to our actual highway system from communities, we know from our estimates, and we’ve been using these for quite some time…. It’s an estimate that at least starts the basis of our discussions — for example, on the Mackenzie Valley Highway. We’re looking at a highway-level road at about $1 million per kilometre. That has a huge impact as to what we can actually proceed with. But we’re prepared to work with communities and some arrangement…. We’re cost sharing on some of the initial studies so we can advance to the next level. We’re prepared to do that with the community of Aklavik as well.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
