Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m done.
Moving on with questions I have Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just some quick follow-ups there. I know the Protected Areas Strategy is going through a number of five-year plans. I think the average to actually get a nominated area protected, should it be protected eventually, is in the area of 12 to 15 years. What is the general status of the Protected Areas Strategy? Where are we at? Perhaps that’s a question being asked in the reviews that are going on, but perhaps I could just pose it as what have we achieved of what we set out to achieve, and when can we expect to see the results of the reviews, and what input will committee have on those reviews?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this juncture, as I laid out for Ms. Bisaro, we’re consolidating and trying to make sure we have all these other broad planning pieces in place before we proceed any farther or faster with existing wildlife areas that have been nominated and definitely not adding any others at this point. I will ask the deputy minister if he could give some of the background information of the sites and any sort of catalogue of the work that’s been done over the years.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Campbell.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most of the protected areas sites are in the Deh Cho right now. There’s half a dozen there at various stages. There are a few very close to the end of the eight-step process. There are, of course, a couple of areas in the Sahtu and, as well, there’s a site that overlaps the Deh Cho and the South Slave, as well, around the Buffalo Lakes area.
Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that information. The regional land use programs are referred to on the narrative side of this and integrate environmental, social, cultural and economic interests. Obviously this would be important for our economic development and mineral development strategies and so on. What regional land use plans that do this integration do we have in place?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Gwich’in Land Use Plan is complete. The Sahtu Land Use Plan is down to, I think, some final issues that are going to get resolved. I think that’s going to be concluded in the coming few months. The Deh Cho Land Use Plan, of course, is a subject that we have been talking in the Deh Cho about and we are interested in seeing if we could come to a conclusion on that as well, keeping in mind that there are politics that have happened there with Edehzhie and the K’atlodeeche folks pulling out of the process. In the South and North Slave we have no land use planning underway that I’m aware of in any substantive nature.
I guess there’s the obvious concern that this government is pushing very hard on development of resource extraction and we’re doing this in the absence of these land use plans. Obviously we need to take a cautious approach in the absence of these plans. How is the weight being given to that cautious approach, just as in managing wildlife?
I point out, as well, that I looked over one. The Tlicho as well have concluded, I understand, their land use plan.
One of our priorities in this Assembly that has been handed down from Assembly to Assembly for 17 Assemblies now is the whole issue of the sustainability, the balance between economic development and the environment, the land, the water, the animals. We still have that as a fundamental principle that guides us. We’re spending an enormous amount of time and money and effort not only to look and see if we can support economic development, but we’re doing many, many things on the environmental side with alternative energies, with the work on water, with the work on wildlife, to make sure that both those areas get the attention they deserve.
In this forum here, the debate is always there, trying to make sure we have that balance and can demonstrate that. That is our ongoing commitment.
Just generally looking at this division, what proportion of our budget is going to land use plans, water and environmental assessment?
We have $4.699 million for land and water and $1.053 million for environmental assessment and monitoring.
What of those dollars are going to land use planning?
I don’t have that specific level of detail, but we are active, we have a full contingent at the Sahtu Land Use Planning Process, full contingent with the Deh Cho as we get back to that one, and we are fully engaged with our own staff, as well, concluding the land use and sustainability framework. We have a significant amount of time and our people and resources tied up, as well, on the water side, which is tied into land use planning, as well, I would submit.
Thanks for those comments from the Minister. On the environmental assessment monitoring side where we do screenings and then the higher level environmental assessments and environmental impact reviews, these are real opportunities to put conditions on projects. What sort of conditions are we pursuing in the order of greenhouse gas emissions to work towards the obvious need to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions in the Northwest Territories?
One of the biggest generators of greenhouse gases, of course, is the generation of energy. I would suggest to you as we come forward in the coming weeks with our plan for the hydro development transmission line and grid hookups so we could have available for resource development reasonably priced locally generated energy that will probably be one of the single biggest deterrents to the increase of greenhouse gases. We look and we don’t have to tell the resource operators like the mines, for example, which put in millions of dollars into wind energy how to cut their greenhouse gases because it’s money for them if they do. We want to encourage them to follow along the steps that Diavik did. Of course, conservation is one area where there’s huge opportunity to save money, because right now you can’t get away from using diesel.
We’re taking a very broad, comprehensive approach to this and we want to have the discussion not just on a project-by-project basis, but what we’re going to do as a government to make sure we provide those necessary critical services, and one of the most critical ones is reasonable energy that is as green as possible.
Thanks for the Minister’s comments there. I don’t think they’re very accurate, obviously. I guess I would like to ask the Minister, what has been the greenhouse gas reductions net reductions in these industry emissions in the Northwest Territories for whatever time frame he cares to talk about. I’m very happy to see Diavik taking a leadership role on their own, and I think they’re talking about 4 to 6 percent of their energy being from wind compared to zero from renewable energy. That’s significant. The opportunity, as the Minister said, is there in a way that saves money. It’s not being taken up. Just like people have difficulties with those front-end costs even though it’s clear that they save money doing it, as well as generate jobs, et cetera. I would be happy to have the Minister correct me and say, yes, this lackadaisical approach – do what you want to do out here with greenhouse gas emissions – has shown reductions. I’ve seen no evidence of it.
The Greenhouse Gas Strategy is a broad framework strategy and I’d point out that we have invested millions in developing biomass first, the market, and now the industry. We are breaking good new ground on how we do solar. We’re looking at some major, major hydro initiatives with transmission, generation over the next five to 10 years that we want to finalize and come out with.
If you put all of those together, those are part of the Greenhouse Gas Strategy. The Greenhouse Gas Strategy is not sitting out there separate by itself. We’ve done all of these subsidiary strategies that allow us to meet the targets in that Greenhouse Gas Strategy. Plus we have industry on our own volition because it makes good economic sense, making significant advancements, for example, in wind.
So I think we’re anything but lackadaisical. I know we live in a cold climate, we do have a strong reliance on fossil fuels, but as a territory we’re taking very significant steps to reduce our reliance on that both for ourselves and the mid and longer term for industry. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley, your time has expired. I have no one else on the list. Would you like to have any questions now? Thank you. Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, land and water, operations expenditure summary, $5.752 million. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Page 13-30, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, land and water, grants and contributions, contributions, $550,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Page 13-31, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, land and water, active positions. Any questions?
Agreed.
Page 13-32, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, lease commitments - infrastructure. Are there any questions?
Agreed.
Seeing none, 13-33, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, Environment Fund. Any questions? Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just have one question here with regard to the surplus under the Environment Fund. It’s down quite a bit from the revised estimates figure for 2012-13, but it’s equal to pretty much the mains from ‘12-13, but it’s down quite a bit from the actuals in ‘11-12. I wondered if I can get an explanation on that as to the why. My other question has to do with what do we do with this money? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. For that answer we’ll go to Ms. Magrum.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The main estimates are calculated on a three-year average of actuals. We tend to be conservative in our estimates. We are optimistic that that number will be higher, but that is how that $246,000 is calculated. The surplus is available each year to have a total accumulated surplus of the fund and the intent of that fund is to be used towards the development of other projects, other programs within the Environment Fund program.
Thanks for the explanation, Ms. Magrum. So am I right in seeing, then, that there’s $2.3 million or so? As a closing balance that would be what the surplus is I think. What sorts of things do we use this for? That’s a fair bit of money. I understand we use it for something, but could I get a couple of examples of what we use it for? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, of that $2.3 million projected closing balance, there is an equipment reserve which is reserved for replacement of equipment. Those are called restricted funds. We had an unrestricted surplus at the end of the last fiscal year of $1.3 million. That money is available to be used for other initiatives such as e-waste or other strategic initiatives that the department decides. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, just one last question here. The Minister talked about moving on to e-waste I think in this next fiscal year. Of this $1.3 million that we have to play with, so to speak, is it currently specifically intended for e-waste or have we not yet decided what we’re going to do with this $1.3 million? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. For that we’ll go to Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next major initiative that we spent some time getting ready to address is the e-waste one. As we sort out the arrangements with Alberta, and the costs and they’re going to accrue both for gathering the e-waste in the North and shipping it and doing the things we need to do, that money will come into play there as our next priority. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Committee, we’re on 13-33. Minister Miltenberger, go ahead.
I should also just reiterate that we also committed in this House, I think last week, to take a look at the milk cartons as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Committee, we’re on 13-33, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, Environment Fund. Any questions?
Agreed.
Thank you. Page 13-34, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, work performed on behalf of others. Any questions? Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really just have one general comment for this sort of activity. It is about six or eight pages long. I did a little survey and found that the majority of projects we’ve listed with the federal government are ending or dropping significantly in funding. There are zero new programs planned. Seven of them are being maintained. There are about 16 or 18 of these. One is actually increasing in funding, but zero new programs and it just seems like, looking at the numbers, we typically do add programs. I’m wondering, will we be entering into new agreements later in the fiscal year. Is that what’s happening here? What’s happening that we’re not generating new partnership agreements for work performed on behalf of others that are typically on areas that concern our residents and our resources? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. For that we’ll go to Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s very difficult to plan for this type of work within the fiscal year. Often we don’t know, with almost no notice. When you compound that with the fact that the federal government is under significant strain as it meets its deficit reduction targets and such, things become even more uncertain. So I can’t say with any certainty what may be coming or what may drop off the list at the end of this fiscal year. That information hasn’t been shared with us yet. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, that’s all I had.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Page 13-34, Environment and Natural Resources, information item, work performed on behalf of others. Any questions?
Agreed.
