Still on page 16, Education, Culture and Employment, Advanced Education and Careers, not previously authorized: $194,000.
Advanced Education and Careers, $194,000 approved.
Income Security, not previously authorized: $552,000. Agreed?
Income Security, $552,000 approved.
The Total Department, not previously authorized: $1,992,000.
Total Department, $1,992,000 approved.
Moving along to page 17, Transportation, Corporate Services, not previously authorized: negative $243,000.
Transportation, Operations Expenditures, Corporate Services, $243,000 approved.
Airport, not previously authorized: $385,000. Agreed?
Airport, $385,000 approved.
Highways, not previously authorized: $1,170,000. Agreed?
Highways, $1,170,000 approved.
Ferries, not previously authorized: $201,000. Agreed?
Ferries, $210,000 approved.
Road Licensing and Safety, not previously authorized: $20,000. Agreed?
Road Licensing and Safety, $20,000 approved.
Total Department, not previously authorized: $1,533,000. Agreed?
Total Department, $1,533,000 approved.
Moving on to page 18, Industry, Tourism and Investment, Corporate Management, not previously authorized: $158,000.
Industry, Tourism and Investment, Operations Expenditures, Corporate Management, $158,000 approved.
Economic Development, not previously authorized: negative $1,864,000.
Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, there is a Tourism Product Diversification and Marketing Program, I believe, in the range of $2.5 million. It has been reduced by approximately $2.1 million. I would just like to find out or have the FMB Minister put on record where that $2.1 million will show up or who is getting it or where it is going.
Mr. Chairman, it’s being reduced so that the overall expenditure of the Government of the Northwest Territories would be reduced by this amount in accordance. The department has worked in this area and won’t be needing this funding for this year but is re-profiling it, and it will come back in through next year’s business planning cycle.
When the Minister says that they will be re-profiling it, does that mean it will be voted on as new money, or will it fall out of this system into the lapsed process, back into the Treasury, and be put up the competition like every other program, or will it be re-profiled automatically on the Tourism Product Diversification line item?
Mr. Chairman, as we know, every budget has to be approved by this Assembly. The Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment has put forward a plan that reinvests the dollars over a number of years to fit this program over a number of years, so that is in the system.
Mr. Chairman, I just had a couple of questions following up on Mr. Hawkins’ concern. There was a great deal of interest when the program itself was talked about late in the life of the last government. There was also a rush to get a briefing to our committee earlier on this year. I’m just wondering. The rush was because there was a line up of operators and people out there in the Territory that were waiting to get some of this assistance money. So if we are re-profiling it and putting it off, what money is available today for the operators that were waiting to access this funding?
Mr. Chairman, for this fiscal year, up until we agree on a new budget with new initiatives, $304,000.
Mr. Chairman, I guess that part of the onus on getting the briefing and getting it before committee was because there was a pent-up demand out there amongst operators to access some of these dollars, and if now there is only $304,000, I believe the Premier had mentioned, then that causes me some concern. I don’t understand why we couldn’t have more money available for operators wanting to access the Product Diversification Fund.
Mr. Chairman, there were a lot of packages that have gone out. As well, individuals or companies could have gone to the department’s web site to download it off that process. At this stage there have been eight applications received, with the possibility of up to 13 scheduled for the end of January.
I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same, because the last government’s Governance and Economic Development Committee found out about the program through a supplementary appropriation. And here we are in this government…. Being the Chair of EDI, this is the first I’ve heard, through this sup, that the funding is not going to be even what we thought it was going to be in January. So again, it’s in a sup where we find out exactly what’s happening. Like I said, the more things change, the more they stay the same sometimes. I am a bit concerned about that, Mr. Chairman.
The total budget line stays the same over the same number of years. It is changing, though, from one year to the next. Instead of such a large amount being utilized in 2007-08, as highlighted, the number is now $340,000, and the balance is then being redistributed over 2008-09 through to 2011-12.
Not to belabour it much longer, but again, the committee was under the understanding that there is a substantial amount of money there. Again, for the pent-up demand that was out there with tourism operators here in the Northwest Territories…. Obviously, something changed somewhere.
The money is not there, like it was supposed to be there. We’re just finding out about it through a supplementary appropriation — that the briefing we had with the Minister six weeks ago wasn’t what it seemed. I don’t know if…. It wasn’t communicated to committee, not to my knowledge; I could be mistaken. But I’m wondering if it was communicated to the tourism industry and the operators that are out there and that are picking up packages that were trying to access some of these dollars.
Mr. Chairman, this is an example of when dollars are approved late in a fiscal year. Getting a program implemented and available sometimes can prove more challenging than initially anticipated. Luckily, today we have the Minister of ITI who can give more details as to what the Member has raised with his concerns.
I think the pent-up demand is still there. It just became a question of cash-flowing the money. We rolled out the program on January 7, and as the applications have been rolling in, we realized that, as part of the cash-flowing, we weren’t going to have enough applications to flow the whole $2.5 million in this fiscal year. To ensure that all the money goes for tourism operators, we put forward a request to re-profile it. And that’s why we’re bringing it forward here as part of the supplementary appropriation.
The overall effect is that we’re still going to have $5.6 million over four years available for this tourism diversification program. I think it’s just a cash-flowing issue.
Just really quick, Mr. Chairman: $340,000 — I think that would be taken up quite quickly by applications that were received. Some of the concerns by committee members were that the funding that was available wasn't enough.
I’m having a little bit of trouble understanding why we couldn't flow this money because we didn't have enough applications. I think the applications are out there, and there is a demand out there for the money. I’m having a little bit of trouble understanding that rationale.
Based on the applications that we received and the amounts requested from the different programs that were being accessed, we have calculated how much money would flow out this fiscal year. We are anticipating that all the $2.5 million that we had originally budgeted for this fiscal year will be spent, but it’s a cash-flow issue.
Of the applications received, we calculate that $318,000 will be paid out this fiscal year. That's why we're asking to re-profile the remainder, so we can spend it next fiscal year.
The Minister is saying that if they had the $2.5 million this fiscal year, it wouldn't have been spent. That is prior to the end of June?
This ’07-08 fiscal year still ends at the end of March. Later on in the session, we're going to be dealing with how we get from March to June. This budget, the dollars voted for the 2007-08 fiscal year and the authority to spend those dollars ends March 31, 2008.
Still on page 18, Industry, Tourism and Investment, Economic Development, not previously authorized: negative $1,864,000.
Industry, Tourism and Investment, Economic Development, $1,864,000 approved.
Total Department, not previously authorized: negative $1,706,000. Agreed?
Total Department, $1,706,000 approved.
Moving on to page 19, Environment and Natural Resources, Operations Expenditures, Corporate Management, not previously authorized: $375,000.
Environment and Natural Resources, Corporate Management, $375,000 approved.
Total Department, not previously authorized: $375,000.
Total Department, $375,000 approved.
Moving on to page 20, Municipal and Community Affairs, Regional Operations, not previously authorized: $3,172,000.
With regard to the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Agreement, I'd like to ask the Minister exactly what the time limit is on this agreement, what other projects are going to fall within this funding arrangement, and which communities are going to be benefiting from this program.
This is an agreement that flows over a five-year period. The total amount of that was in the neighbourhood of $16 million. This flows through to a number of communities. For that information, it was split as well between tax-based and non–tax-based communities: 45 per cent to tax-based communities and 55 per cent to non–tax-based communities is the way it’s worked out.
We don't identify, for example, what tax-based communities spend their money on. They have their plan to work on. As well, we have a new deal process we’ve worked out with a number of other communities.
The Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs may be able to provide a bit more detail there.
There is a number of projects that we have approved to date. I believe the Member is asking for a listing of those projects. Those are the Behchoko sewer main replacement, the Behchoko water treatment plant, the Behchoko vault replacement, the Behchoko solid waste disposal site, the Inuvik woodbox utilidor replacement, the Norman Wells water storage tank replacement, the Yellowknife corrugated metal pipe replacement, Fort Simpson water and sewer main replacement, the Fort Smith Water Treatment Plant upgrade, the Hay River sewage treatment lagoon upgrade and the Fort Smith intake ground stabilization and geotechnical assessment.
There is still a number of projects we’re looking at. Those are the implementation of the water treatment plants, and also the Nahanni Butte gym project, the Fort Smith Water Treatment Plant amendment and the city of Yellowknife wood pellet boiler project.
I asked the question of how many years, and the Minister mentioned five years. When does it start and when does it end within that five years?
Mr. Chairman, the program started in January 2005, so this is a continuation. It’s been adjusted as of recently. I believe it ends in five years, so it’d be 2010.
I know there’s talk about another fund in regard to the Canadian building fund. Can these dollars — and also using the Canadian building fund dollars — be used jointly, or is this a separate fund altogether?
Mr. Chairman, I believe they are separate funds. The Building Canada Fund needs the matching dollars from each jurisdiction to qualify. This one is separate from that.
I believe that we do have very major infrastructure problems — our community especially. There’s federal legislation that’s being developed, or has been developed, looking at the possibility of having to process our grey water. Right now we just pump it out of a house, put it into a vehicle and put it into a sump. I think there’s talk about having to process that through a treatment facility.
Again, there’s going to be a major cost implication to communities, where you’re going to have to start treating your grey water. I’m just making the Premier aware that there are going to be implications, especially for smaller communities, non–tax-based communities, which will not be able to, unless we match some of these funds.
That’s why I asked the question of the possibility of matching or, basically, getting some money through the municipal infrastructure fund and maybe through that Building Canada Fund which can assist these small communities where you will have a major capital cost, especially if we have to force all our communities to go into the arrangement of having to treat grey water in all our communities.
I think there is that financial implication that is coming, and I think we have to be ready for it.
Also, the problem we see from putting water treatment plants in communities where the costs have skyrocketed and where we’re realizing.… I believe we have ten communities on a list, and we’re only able to do five. Again, with the limited dollars we have, we have to be able to stretch it as far as we can.
I’d like to ask the Premier exactly.… I know we’re still in negotiations on the Building Canada Fund. Is that something we can bring forward to the federal government to see if we have the flexibility of doing that — being able to move this money around and also joining these two funding sources together for any large capital projects that may come in well over our allowable amounts, because we won’t able to match it, especially if we expect the small communities to match those projects.
I have to go to the Minister responsible, the Minister of Community Affairs. He can give details on the overlap or how one fund affects another. Potentially, one may roll into the other. The question about the bundled projects or the…. Previously the Minister responded about bundled projects. That is one of the activities we’re looking at doing: how our infrastructure is not one project by one project. We found they cost substantially higher. But for the actual funding, how it rolls out and the impact on other dollars available, Mr. McLeod can provide that detail.
Mr. Chairman, this whole initiative was put in place by the federal government with a budget of $16 million over five years. It increased by an additional $3 million over the life of those five years.
Although it doesn’t state it, the MRIF program is completed. It’s expected that the new Building Canada Fund will replace it in terms of providing funding for infrastructure to the communities. It would be very unlikely that they would accept a project that’s been approved through the MRIF process — that has an oversight committee that we have joint management on with the federal government, that we would be able to use the new money to steer it towards an already approved project. I would say the chances are going to be very slim. We haven’t signed the framework agreement yet. Once we do that and we start working on the funding agreement, the detail will become more clear. Thank you.
I would like to ask again: would you consider that some communities may not be able to come up with the matching funds? We should have the flexibility or ask for the flexibility with the federal government in those circumstances that we do allow for some leeway. Again, I know people are perceiving a gas tax and whatnot. But again, the smaller your population, the less you get.
I think it’s important that we do look at that option and that we don’t totally exclude it from our negotiations. I’d like to get some assurance that maybe we’ll consider that in our discussions with the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, the Building Canada Fund, again, as the Minister pointed out, is going to continue on where this one changes. As well, there is an allocation identified, and this is the work that’s been ongoing in negotiations with the federal government. A portion of that is for municipal infrastructure; a portion of it is for transportation infrastructure. And there are a number of categories that are highlighted within that. Again, the Minister may have further detail on that.
Mr. Chairman, the Member’s concerns have been raised by the members of LGANT, the Local Government Administrators of the Northwest Territories. They’ve also been brought forward by the N.W.T. Association of Communities.
One of the things that we’re trying to work out as we move forward on the discussions with the Building Canada Fund is how would the communities access the dollars that would be made available — whether it’s a formula funding process that we have now with the communities for the capital or would it be an application base so that we can enhance what they’re doing already and give them a little bit of breathing room.
We’re not quite there yet on how we’re going to do that. That’s something we’ll have to work out because we want to include the communities as we have those discussions.
With regard to the way the funds are going to be rolled out, is that going to be base-plus funding in regard to having a base for communities to work off of and then maybe look at population on top of that? I know that process. We have done that in the past in regard to the last Assembly. And I think that way did work.
I think that having a base to work off makes it more workable for communities to do capital projects in communities. I would just like to know: is that program going to be base-plus funded?
The arrangement between ourselves and the federal government has a base to it. As we proceed from our end to communities looking at project by project, that changes how it flows. But there is potential that it can recognize the difference in community size as well. The Minister, again, can add more detail.
Mr. Chairman, we have confirmation from our government that they will be going into two different areas: transportation and municipal assets. We have a process for the transportation side of it.
The unknown at this point is how the money would flow to the communities. Of course, that’s why we can’t put together any lists and bring it forward because we need to work out a number of things before we can move forward. And dealing with the communities, providing money to the municipalities for capital is one of the areas that we have to yet negotiate and work out.
Final question. How soon do we expect to have an answer or have this negotiation concluded so that we can see where we’re going with this program?
