Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe we’re now on 6-38? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I notice that additional funding for grants eligible to community governments assisting with the insurance and mobile equipment operations has decreased. Of course insurance costs decreasing is welcome news. I certainly hope that’s the answer that explains what the dip is in what looks like, I’ll just call it $150,000, maybe close to $200,000 difference there in the negative. So could the Minister provide some information as to what’s changed in that circumstance? Thank you.
Director of corporate affairs, Ms. Gareau.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Additional funding is provided to the eight designated band communities in the Northwest Territories and as well as settlement corporations. Fort Resolution and Colville Lake recently have changed their legislative status, or at least Colville was projected to. So both Fort Resolution and Colville Lake receive funding out of this additional funding pot and we have taken that funding and deleted it out of the additional funding pot and moved it to community government O and M funding. That’s where they’ll receive that funding. So those communities will still receive that funding, it’s just shifted funding source. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for that answer. If I could just be 100 percent clear then, then when you take the two items into consideration, community government funding and of course the additional funding, I mean, is there a net difference? Thank you.
In Colville Lake, from the additional funding pot, Colville Lake will be receiving a transfer of $196,000 from that budget and the community of Fort Resolution will be receiving a transfer of $27,000 from that budget. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for that detail. Specifically to those types of grants and contributions, is there any net difference? I just want to make sure that because they’ve changed their status, that’s one particular issue that’s obviously shown up here, but will they lose any funding or will it have eroded either now in column B moved from column A? So I just want to make sure. Thank you.
No, they will not be receiving any funding decrease. In fact, both the communities will be receiving a funding increase because of their change in legislative status. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Gareau, and thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Committee, we’re on page 6-38. Mr. Krutko.
I just have a question in regard to the senior citizens and disabled persons property tax. Is there a possibility of being able to change the criteria? Right now you get your assessment in the mail, you have to go to the municipal office, you have to fill out an application every year to get the rebate. Is there any way that you can simplify the process where basically once you reach a certain age, 60 or 65, that you come in every three years or every five years? Most of these people, we know exactly what their status is there. Most of them are senior citizens. We know what their pensions are. We know what their income is, but it seems like having to do the same thing over and over, is that something that can be looked at in regard to revising some of these programs and making them more user friendly so you can come in once you reach a certain age, based on your income, which we already pretty well know, that you don’t have to go in every year? You’d say go in every three years or every five years or something. Has that ever been contemplated for that program?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the reasons that they’re asked to come in all the time is just to re-establish that they’re still the owners of the property. But I’ll commit to the Member that we’ll find ways to work with them, so we can simplify the process where they’re not going to have to be coming in all the time. If there’s something that we can work out, then we’ll try and accommodate them to make it a lot easier. Thank you.
I’d just like to thank the Minister for that, but again, I think that working with the Seniors’ Society and also working with those other organizations... I think that if we can find a way of simplifying the process, making it less stressful on the individuals, because a lot of times the elders do get confused. They get this bill in the mail and they get all rattled because they’ve got a bill. For them, in some cases, some of them actually pay their bill without realizing you don’t have to.
Myself, personally, I have had several seniors come to me and show me their bill and I’ve told them, well, come with me and I’ll walk them to the hamlet office and sit down with the people at the hamlet office to help them get the application. Most of them, unless they ask, don’t really understand that you actually are eligible for these programs.
So, again, if there’s a way that there’s an automatic process that once you reach a certain age you automatically go into the system and the system, once you sign in, basically, you will be able to receive this program and, like I say, have ongoing ways of ensuring that the issues that you talk about with property ownership and whatnot... But again, in most cases unless they actually sell their property and, in most cases, these elders have their own homes, they’ve lived there all their lives and yet they’re continued to have to go through this. So, again, I’d just like to request that we do simplify the process and take it forward to find ways of working it out with the local communities.
I’ll commit to the Member that we’ll see what we can do to simplify the process for the seniors. Thank you.
I just had a question under the contributions, water and sewer service funding. Is that to do with dual systems like water delivery and utilidor systems or is that only for people on water delivery? Is there a formula that you use based on these types of systems?
This is for both and it’s based on standard guidelines that we use and as you can see the funding has increased this year to the communities for their water and sewer funding. Some of it would be because of the communities... Well, the rising prices of everything is basically what it comes down to.
The reason I asked the question is in McPherson we do have to deliver water some 20 kilometres from the water source. You have different treatment systems. You have water delivery systems. You have a utilidor system. I think what we’re finding is that you have an aging piece of infrastructure and at some point you’re going to have to either replace it, upgrade it, or get rid of it. I’m talking about the utilidor system and the growing community. I think the hamlet has taken it on their own to take over some of those responsibilities because they are struggling to manage the money they do have for that program. There are those other cost drivers that you don’t have control of. Right now, especially with the cold temperatures we had this winter, the utilidor froze up at 53 below. The municipality does not have the equipment to thaw out.
Mr. Chairman, could I have some order in the House, please?
I think that seriously the government has to realize when you devolve this piece of infrastructure to a community, at some point when they have to replace that infrastructure, I think what we found, especially with the utilidor system, is it’s a very costly piece of infrastructure. If you’re going to have to replace it or upgrade it, you’re going to have to find other funds than what’s already here in the budget. I know there’s a capital item for unforeseen costs associated with the programs and there used to be the emergency funds, so I’m just wondering if when you figure out this calculation, if you also look at the possibility of having to upgrade or replace these systems.
When we do the water and sewer increase in funding, a lot of things are taken into consideration. A couple things that the Member exactly spoke of is the distance between his community and Deep Water Lake and all that’s taken into consideration. The capital portion of it is not taken into consideration.
It looks like the Minister was just trying to get another couple of words in there before he got cut off. I thought he had some good news.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Minister, would you like to speak a little more?
Well, I was going to add the two or three words: thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Indeed, you are welcome. Committee, we’re on page 6-38, activity summary, Municipal and Community Affairs, regional operations, grants and contributions, community government, grants and contributions, grants, $51.585 million.
Agreed.
Contributions, $13.188 million.
Agreed.
Total community government grants and contributions. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question with regard to... We’re on page 6-38 still, I presume? Thank you. I have a question with regard to the contributions for water and sewer services funding. Could I ask the Minister to advise whether or not all NWT communities receive some of this water and sewer services funding?
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All communities but Yellowknife.
Could I have an explanation as to why not, please?
Mr. McLeod. Ms. Gareau.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Minister alluded to earlier, the methodology used to calculate funding is based on a standard cost allocation formula. Under that formula, there’s a certain portion of revenue that communities are anticipated to be charging residents to cover the costs of water and sewer operations. The City of Yellowknife, because of its large population, is deemed under the formula to be able to be charging enough revenue that it does not need a funding supplement from MACA.
Thank you, Ms. Gareau. Anything further, Ms. Bisaro?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Only to say that it doesn’t seem very fair.
Thank you. Comment there. Committee, we’re on page 6-38, Municipal and Community Affairs, activity summary, regional operations, total community government grants and contributions, $64.773 million.
Agreed..
Page 6-39, activity summary, Municipal and Community Affairs, regional operations, grants and contributions, other grants and contributions, grants, $80,000.
Agreed.
Contributions, $1.125 million.
Agreed.
Total other grants and contributions, $1.205 million.
Agreed.
Total grants and contributions, $65.978 million.
Agreed.
Page 6-40, information item, Municipal and Community Affairs, regional operations, active positions. Any questions?
Agreed.
Page 6-42, information item, Municipal and Community Affairs, work performed on behalf of others. Questions?
Agreed.
Page 6-43, information item, Municipal and Community Affairs, work performed on behalf of others, continued. Questions? Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our pages only go to 6-40.
