Thank you, Madam Chair. Very quickly. I appreciate this being brought forward and I will be supporting the motion. This is the sort of thing that both Yukon and Nunavut have. It’s been called for for a long time. We did a review of support for the film industry during the 16th Assembly. Some good improvements were made and this is taking the next logical step that addresses the big gap that remains out there. The SEED program is supportive but what is needed is exactly what’s defined in this motion. I will be supporting it.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate Mr. Hawkins’ for bringing this motion forwards and I know colleagues that have been speaking towards it. This is just the evolutionary progression of what is just good stewardship and management of an industry.
This industry, as we are well aware, is very nomadic when it comes to our national and international filmmakers. This motion does speak very highly to helping our local film producers, as mentioned by Mr. Hawkins. I had the pleasure of having one-on-one dialogues with the national film producers of Arctic Air and Ice Pilots NWT and they clearly said, as much as they appreciate tax incentives, that is not the impetus for them to do filming here in the North. What would be a value add to them was very clear. Their cost of air travel, their cost of lodging, these are true tangible costs. These were impediments for them to do business here, but they want to do business here. We have to make it easy for them. If we don’t make it easy for them, we know full well that the industry will move on. Just ask the Province of Saskatchewan. That was a lesson learned. We’ve got to learn from the mistakes, possibly of others, and make sure we put adequate measures to mitigate it.
On top of that, not speaking to this motion, is the fact that these very same stewards and film producers clearly indicated they needed cultural experts as well. I know, not speaking to the motion, but we’ve got to listen to these, these are fundamentally the stewards, these are the people who are promoting the NWT through film and industry, and I think we need to look at it. I hope that Cabinet is listening because if Cabinet is not listening, they’re saying no in essence to this industry by not supporting it.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be abstaining from this vote on this motion. The difficulty I have with this process is we’re talking about the 2013-2014 budget and this is an initiative they want implemented into the 2014-2015 budget. We have a process in place. We have a business plan process that, as a new Member, I think we have a way to put these initiatives into it. Every one of these Members here have initiatives that are good, strong initiatives. I can sit here and probably make 10 motions of things that I want in the 2014-2015 budget, a year from now, two years from now. Where are we going to go with this? If we’re going to continue the budget process, the discussion should be on the 2013-2014 budget and I’ve already indicated to the Member that I don’t support this concept of putting additional 2014-2015 items into this year’s budget. It’s not the process, that’s not the avenue we have to give our initiatives there. I will be abstaining from this motion.
---Applause
Glad to see the Cabinet is listening. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
Back to page 12-31, Industry, Tourism and Investment, economic diversification and business support. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will give the Minister a chance to get his seat there. I do appreciate the Minister’s support for agriculture under the economic diversification business support side of things. I know he had a bit of a peak experience with the Polar Egg move. I just want to explore the Growing Forward Program a little bit. I understand it’s being renewed, Growing Forward 2. Of Growing Forward 1, what proportion of the funds – I don’t remember how much it was – was allocated to contributions to other parties and what was spent with our own programs internally, agricultural programs internally?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Vician.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Growing Forward Program that is in place to the end of March 31st called Growing Forward 1 basically invested $3.2 million in our agricultural programs. I don’t have the exact value. I’d have to look at the individual main estimate and public accounts how the actual breakdown occurred, but the majority of that allocation was distributed in contributions to parties across the Northwest Territories in various areas.
I’ll just reference the typical annual budget allocation. Small Scale Food, around $245,000; northern agri-food programs, $105,000; inter-settlement trade initiatives, around $12,000; traditional harvesting sourced a great deal of the program at $234,000; contributions were made to still commercial wildlife support of $80,000; in one particular area we made a contribution of about $50,000 to bison agricultural development. That would be a typical allocation by the agricultural sector, but overall the small scale foods and traditional side was where the primary support existed.
The products on traditional would be, for example, the Muskox Harvesting Program for a number of years was quite well supported and continues to be reviewed. Overall, it’s primarily a contribution program and with the hopeful conclusion of negotiations early in the fiscal year with the federal government Department of Agriculture, we’ll see an increase to $1.2 million annually in that program and we’re quite excited as, through the Minister, for a five-year agreement to see such success in this and the support by the federal government in this area.
Thanks for those comments. I guess I’m particularly interested in the Small Scale Food Program. I know we have a very active program in that area and I’m getting a lot of feedback from the communities that our approach hasn’t been the most productive. We tend to go into communities, choose the location of a plot of land, plow it up, plant it, then leave. I think the work that the department has been doing more recently and the partners that they’ve been supporting who are bringing in many other partners are actually working with individuals in the communities to be much more effective and I’m hoping that will actually characterize the work going forward. I would appreciate that breakdown, at least on what we spent internally versus what we made through contributions to partners. Just on that, if we have a community garden put in, say, Whati and we go in and do it and so on, is that an internal expenditure or is that considered a contribution to a partner?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to the Member’s last question, it could be both. It depends on which community and the dynamics of it.
Thanks to the Minister’s comments. I appreciate that. I think this is an opportunity to do some serious navel gazing to see how well we’ve done and how productive our work has been with internal efforts versus through contributions. I know there seems to be an effort out there that restricts contributions to projects that are less than an acre in size. To me, that’s completely crazy. It ignores the size of our communities and so on and I have to wonder where that’s coming from.
I think the Minister is on the right track and good, full discussions on this with all of our partners who are out there doing the real work would be a good way to go. That is all I have on gardening.
Maybe just let me throw in a comment on fisheries. I know that it is dear to some folks’ heart. The Minister mentioned in discussions – I believe it was yesterday; it seems like several days ago – the Great Bear Lake trout. I completely agree with him. I have eaten at the same table as the Minister. That is a pretty amazing fish.
The difficulty is the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board. It becomes lake trout from somewhere in Canada. That has always been the problem. It’s still the problem. At one point, the fishers were going to get out of fishing and that was reversed, but it is such a dilemma that we are losing out considerably. We used to ship fish from Great Slave Lake to Chicago in the ‘60s and get over $1.50 a pound, big bucks in those days. Then along came this operation and that’s gone. So it’s a sad state compared to what our potential is. I look forward to any comments the Minister has on how we can do it. It is a tough one, I am the first to admit, but we do need to deal with it somehow. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I really do appreciate the Member’s comments. I know I mentioned yesterday that, with the Great Slave Lake fishery, that is something that over the next two and a half years I think we need to put some real push behind. I have had meetings with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. We need to be working together with the industry, both in Hay River and here in Yellowknife. I really think we can make some progress here. It is a resource that is right here. It’s at our doorstep.
I know Mr. Bromley has been here for a number of years. We used to be taking a lot more fish out of that lake than we currently are. I do believe there’s some room to move there. I’ve been encouraged with the discussions I have had with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Our efforts will be on how we can work together. I think that’s how we’re going to proceed on that.
It gets back to some of the dialogue that we’ve heard through the Economic Opportunities Strategy. The panel was down in Hay River. This is a subject that has been brought up repeatedly around Great Slave Lake, is the government has to be doing more with the fishery. Certainly I think you’ll see perhaps some recommendations in the EOS report when it does come back through the strategy. We hope to be able to get some solid recommendations that we can act upon. It is a resource that is right there.
As far as Great Bear Lake goes, when I was responding to MLA Yakeleya, there might be some other opportunities, perhaps not through the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, for Great Bear trout. It is a specialized product. I can see it being a specialized product. There might be a certain market out there for that fish. I know it is a tremendous fish. Any time I get a chance to go to Deline, I always have to try the trout from Great Bear Lake. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Next I have Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one question in this section. This question has to do with the BDIC. Section 41 of the NWT BDIC Act establishes mandatory review of BDIC programs every five years. The act came into force in 2005. Therefore, there should have been a review in 2010, which I don’t believe there was. We’re nearing the second anniversary of a potential review. Because the section does establish a mandatory review, maybe if we can get an update as to why the 2010 review didn’t happen and whether or not we’re going to see a review in short order. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, for a detailed response I will go to Deputy Minister Vician, but I just met with the BDIC board. There are going to be efforts underway to do the work the Member is talking about. For the specifics, I will go to Deputy Minister Vician.
Thank you. Mr. Vician.
Madam Chair, as the Member has indicated, yes, the review is a requirement under the statute, and that review will be undertaken. There have been delays in undertaking that review. We have, through the Department of ITI and the BDIC management, utilized the services of the program review office in the Department of Executive. There have been delays with regard to some capacity issues at that point. However, it is identified as an ongoing effort, and the program review office is undertaking that work and has committed to completing that work in the coming months and we hope to report out through committee on the results of that report. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vician. Mr. Dolynny.
Madam Chair, if we can get a bit more clarity as to the full scope of this review, given the fact that we are many, many years behind this review process. The Minister indicated that it has gone to the program review office. Can we get an indication here as to is this a full-scale review or are we looking at certain components within the framework of BDIC? Thank you.
The statute requires that the Minister must have a review of the programs established under the BDIC Act. The financial programs that exist currently in the BDIC are under the financial program area, loans, the term loans, the standby letters of credit, working capital guarantees, contributions and subsidy programs. There are similarly additional programs, adventure investment, and business services. The requirement under the statute is to review the scope of all of these programs and identify any issues with regard to the program effectiveness and report out and, obviously, during the course of that, identify opportunities that might exist to potentially be considered as additional programming or other considerations. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, if I can interpret what the Minister just indicated, this will be a full review and not a partial review of programs. We are expecting a full forensic review of all financial programs involving the BDIC. Thank you.
This will be a full review of the programs that exist currently within the BDIC. It will not be a forensic assessment. The assessment of the programs and corporate operations of the BDIC is done on an annual basis and tabled in this House through the corporate plan of the corporation. But this will look completely at all of the programs that are offered today and, again, identify other recommendations that may emerge for other programs in the future. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, as I said, this act came into force in 2005. We have yet to see any full-scale review. We are talking about programs that were, from what I gather from the Minister`s comments, active programs. Can the Minister indicate to this House, has there been any programs that have sunsetted since 2005 that are no longer an active program and if those programs also be looked at within this process? Thank you.
All of the programs I have identified today are, in some form, active. I will indicate that some of them have had less activity since the act was enabled in 2005. Most of the programs actually bridged from the creation of the BDIC with the Business Credit Corporation and the Development Corporation prior to 2005. An example might be the Venture Investment Program has not seen activity for many years outside of pre-investment activity prior to 2005. That was carried over into the new act. There have been no sunsets specifically over the period of that 2005-2010 period. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just so I’m perfectly clear, we believe that there are contribution programs and the Minister indicated that there are venture investment programs. Will they, too, be under the premise of this program review? Thank you.
As I indicated earlier, yes, those contribution programs and venture investment programs are part of the review. Thank you, Madam Chair.
We know that there have been discussions in the past regarding the formal review process, as indicated in the House. Can we get an indication as to when Members will be able to see the interim or the final report from this process? Thank you.
The program review office has indicated to the CEO of the Business Development Corporation and myself that they intend to complete this work in fiscal year 2013-14. We’re anxious to see a good portion of this work completed before the business plan reviews are undertaken in September of 2013. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thanks, Mr. Vician. Next on the list, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just with regard to grants and contributions, there’s an increment or a new addition for Canadian Zinc Socio-economic Agreement. Maybe if the Minister can just explain how that budget of $30,000 would be used. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister Ramsay.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. If the Member could just restate his question, I missed the first part of it.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Just with regard to the Canadian Zinc Socio-economic Agreement under grants and contributions of $30,000, how is that money going to be used?
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. For that we’ll go to Mr. Vician.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The purpose of that fund arises out of the socio-economic agreement that was signed between the GNWT and Canadian Zinc in regard to the Prairie Creek Mine. The purpose of that contribution is to support the advisory board and the community committee to basically assess and monitor the success of the objectives or the commitments made in the socio-economic agreement on employment, business activity, community wellness and monitoring issues. So collectively, it will support that community base to do the work it needs to do for the coming years. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Who makes up this Socio-economic Advisory Committee? Thanks.
The committee is constituted by members of the company Canadian Zinc, by the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, by the Department of ITI and by representatives of the Fort Simpson band and by representatives of the Nahanni Butte band. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much. Just on a different topic altogether with the disaster compensation, I see that we’ve got grants at $15,000. How would that disaster grant have applied to the community of Nahanni Butte for this year or last year?
The Harvester Disaster Compensation Program, $15,000, provides up to $4,500 per applicant to defray the portion of their costs to repair or replace assets that are lost or damaged in unavoidable disasters. In ‘11-12, of course, we saw issues in the Sahtu, in Inuvik and, subsequently, we saw issues in the Nahanni Butte area as part of the flood and harvesters would have had access to that. I don’t have any particulars on any particular applications at this time, but if it fell under that condition and met the requirements of the program they would have had access to those program areas. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just for the 2011-2012 actuals of $80,000, was that a previously budgeted amount or were there some exceptional circumstances in that year? Thanks.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. For that we’ll go to Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That was an exceptional circumstance with very high water in the Peel and Mackenzie, in the Beaufort-Delta that year. There were 13 claims that year.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Moving on with questions. Again, colleagues, we’re on 12-31. I have Ms. Bisaro.
Mr. Chair, my questions are actually on 12-33 if we want to wait until we get there. I can ask them now, they’re sort of related.
