David Krutko

Well, the project that comes to mind, just offhand, is the Tulita project. The Tulita community corporation has a hotel. It wasn’t used. They brought in a camp. Same thing in regard to Fort Good Hope. There’s a hotel there that’s owned locally. In Fort McPherson they’ve been building a municipal facility; again, there’s a hotel there that wasn’t used. There are also individuals who have B & Bs established in those communities, and they’re not being used either. So just on that knowledge that’s out there right now, if you’re telling me that that’s not being allowed, well, it’s pretty obvious...

Mr. Chair, I move that $1.4 million be deleted from the activity Highways under Department of Transportation, Capital Estimates 2009–2010, on pages 8-10 and 8-11, for the Highway 5 Km 0–266 Chipseal Project.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the issues that I see coming to light here is that we have a major capital layout in regard to capital projects, but there also has to be a socio-economic component too. And it is capital layout that is out there ensuring that the communities benefit from these projects, not only from the infrastructure itself but also jobs and business opportunities. More importantly, it also ensures that communities do have an opportunity to build capacity around these projects by way of apprenticeship programs — getting people trained in different areas, either in regard to...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have seen, especially this summer and last year, that there have been some major challenges we’re facing on our highways. We had a major highway closure on Highway No. 7, and a culvert collapsed on Highway No. 8. The road condition of Highway No. 6, and also….

You know, we’re starting to close highways down, and we’re finding that it is a question of public safety. Yet we continue to spend major capital dollars on highways that have already been developed with chipseal and major overhauls. We are now in a situation where roads are actually being closed because of the...

I’d like to call the Committee of the Whole to order. Under consideration is Minister’s Statement 80-16(2), Tabled Document 93-16(2), Bills 14, 15, 16 and 17. What is the wish of the committee? Mrs. Groenewegen.

I know there was a major overhaul in regard to the ferry on the Mackenzie crossing at Tsiigehtchic. There were four engines replaced on the vessel. I know that this summer they had problems with one of the engines, which went down. They were operating with only three engines.

I’d like to know if there was any warranty in regard to that particular project. Why is it that with brand new engines we’re already seeing these problems by way of new replacements? Not even a year into the project we’re already having problems with it. What types of warranties do we cover on these types of replacements...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just spoke to the gentleman responsible for reviewing, and right now they’re doing a review in regard to the requirements in Inuvik region. They’re telling me that there’s no need for that large an office building in Inuvik, which will definitely have an effect on the market. If the private sector is already in Inuvik doing this review, how can the Premier tell me they’ve been talking to the sector that they are concerned about in regard to what effect this is going to have on them?

Again, I’d like to ask the Premier: could you put a hold on this project until a...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regard to the Coast Guard regulations that we operate under for marine vessels and also the types of weight that can be carried on specific ferries, I know that the pipeline companies are looking at their transportation option of moving goods and services by highway. In regard to crossings I know there were some questions asked about the Peel River ferry having the capacity to take on some of these heavier loads that we’re probably going to see during the construction of the pipeline.

I would like to ask exactly what this government is doing to ensure we do have the...

With regard to that response, I may even flip the same question with regard to the Yellowknife market. Ninety per cent of the market is private sector in Yellowknife, yet the federal government built a facility here in Yellowknife. They at least had the guts to go out and have an independent review to see exactly what the market disruption would have been over the long term here in Yellowknife in order to satisfy the private sector.

I’d like to ask the Premier: is this government willing to do a similar thing in regard to the Inuvik market and have an independent review to see exactly what the...

So, again, if that’s the case, why is it that a contract went out for 800 pilings in the Inuvik region for this project? A local Gwich’in company had bid on the contract. They didn’t even get a letter back to confirm that they had received their tender. If you’re talking about local preference and basically allowing for local companies to bid on these projects as subcontractors and not be notified, that tells me that this government is undermining the project by way of project management and not following contracting guidelines that are in place, where you have to identify what the local...