Michael Miltenberger

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That review is pretty well done. We’re migrating from net billing to net metering. That work is underway. We’re going through the process. We anticipate that by this fall we will be ready to move to go to the PUB and such. We, as well, have a briefing scheduled next week with committee to update them on the status of this particular initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Monday, June 3, 2013, I will move that Bill 23, Supplementary Appropriation (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2013-2014, be read for the first time. Thank you.

In this case I would suggest that virtue would have to be its own reward, the savings that they would have in their own businesses, and the answer would be no.

I’m sticking to a seasonal target at this point, but by fall, September, October, we expect to have all the necessary steps covered. We want to, of course, do our briefing with committee, get feedback from committee, and it’s going to apply to standby charges as well. I would point out that the net metering and the change is going to be focused on thermal communities and initially to look specifically at solar.

Mr. Speaker, this Legislative Assembly has a vision of strong individuals, families and communities sharing the benefits and responsibilities of a unified, environmentally sustainable and prosperous Northwest Territories. Achieving that vision requires a balanced approach that advances our economic, environmental and social priorities and this government is moving forward on all those fronts.

Supporting economic development for Inuvik, and the whole Northwest Territories, by facilitating the construction of a fibre optic line up the entire length of the Mackenzie Valley to Tuktoyaktuk is one of...

The Member’s comments are accurate in terms of how that money fits into the overall budgetary scheme of things, that it’s tied to remediating any deficiencies tied to ATCON’s involvement in the project. It’s separate from the project.

I’ll ask the deputy if he wants to speak to the amount of money that has been expended. Then I will dig back into my memory. I think we’ve spent there, out of the $13 million, I think we’ve spent five, and tied to addressing deficiencies tied to ATCON’s involvement.

Madam Chair, if you actually look across the whole health care system, I think the government, Health and Social Services, Public Works and Services has and is doing a commendable job in terms of infrastructure in Fort Smith, Hay River. We have done Aklavik.

In my life as a politician, we opened up the Inuvik hospital. We are looking at facilities in Norman Wells, places that had older infrastructure, places that had no infrastructure. At the same time it is now clearly Stanton’s time and we are putting in money. There’s $20 million in next year. We recognize that we’re going to be putting...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Three key points, if I may. The bill before us talks about putting to good use the carry-over, the money that didn’t get spent last year on a critical area. As we all agreed at the start of this Assembly, we would have two years of fiscal discipline and then in year three/four we would add $50 million to the infrastructure budget. So the capital plan is being referred to Members for their review prior to the fall session. It contains those resources so we will have to have that discussion with the Members.

Then the government, through Minister Ramsay, is at work talking to...

It’s worth noting that while the overall percentage of carry-overs is up, on a numerical dollar basis, it’s about $26 million less than last year. We had some major projects tied to Health and some to Transportation tied to contracting and some design issues that we have worked our way through.

The anticipation is this year that we will once again try to set the bar as high as we can. I believe the system is working. I think the changes we made are good ones. But every building season you have to look at the type of projects, the complexity and these other variables that we sometimes don’t have...

As much as I don’t like to disagree with Members, in this case the Member is categorically mistaken. The money that we’re talking about was voted and put aside back in 2004-05 as our part of the broader Giant Mine Remediation Project. That $23 million was taken, $17 million of that was in O and M, put it into capital to pay for this road.

I’m not sure exactly what project the Member is talking about that he thinks Yellowknife got shortchanged on. If it’s the bypass road, that was Build Canada money, but no one has been shortchanged. That money, that $17 million from out of the $23 million that...