Debates of February 6, 2006 (day 23)

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Braden.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. There has been discussion among other Members about the Novel housing proposal, and I think I share with every other Member an expectation, a hope, that this opportunity -- it’s an extraordinary opportunity -- can become something that, indeed, we will be able to apply that will make a difference for our communities. It is exactly the kind of thing, Madam Chair, that we can and should expect as a legacy from the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and with that context, a fair amount of information has been circulated about it. It’s still obviously, though, kind of finding its feet. Like some of the Members, I need to be satisfied on some of the business context and the business approach that we are taking this. I should also acknowledge, too, that the Minister has invited me as well to go to Calgary to see the factory, to see the product and talk to the ATCO folks. I haven’t done that yet. I look forward to the opportunity to do that. The business approach to this is really central to having a look at the product itself.

I think, if I recollect from a little while ago, the discussion Ms. Lee was having with regard to the contributions that were lined up for this and, indeed, correspondence from the Minister, which was tabled on February 1st, would indicate that there is very close to $300 million suggested as the total financial picture that we could potentially be looking at.

I had written the Minister back in August of last year, Madam Chair, with a number of questions related to the project. One of them was in respect of the contributions that were outlined at the time. We were told that the Government of Canada was being prepared for a $90 million one-time contribution; the Government of the Northwest Territories was in it for $121 million; and, the Mackenzie gas project/ATCO was in it for a $26 million involvement. The question I had at that time was, what’s in it for ATCO? Why are they making a $26 million contribution? There was a six-point response, Madam Chair. It covered a whole bunch of areas: to reduce socio-economic cost, to seek agreement with the GNWT for all structures to remain in the North, to develop a positive position with impacted communities, to quicken the regulatory approval of the project, to secure a GNWT socio-economic agreement prior to regulatory board hearings. There was a vested interest in here by the MPG and ATCO to make a contribution to this. But in the discussion that I hear now, and this is what I wanted to confirm and I would like to double check this, ATCO is not making a contribution? They are in this for the money now. All of these quite more social and philanthropic agendas aren’t on the table anymore? Just what is the nature of the contribution that is anticipated, or had been anticipated at least last August, from ATCO, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, a lot has changed since last August. We have to admit that there has been a change from the federal government. We are looking at allocating funding at the front end, but the decision was made to fund it at the back end, which changed the amounts we were going to receive from the federal government. With regard to the negotiations or the meetings that have been held between Fred and his people and people in CMHC and ATCO, we were able to bring down the cost of a lot of these units and be able to not have to expend as much money at the back end to do the conversions. With regard to the decision of waiving the premium, which is $29 million that’s been talked about, by waiving that, once we do the purchase at the back end, those are still open for negotiations. We still have to negotiate a price over the product once the project is…(inaudible)…Because those negotiations are still going on, we aren’t going to state what the outcome price is, but we made it clear to the proponents that there is an area we are looking at. It’s in the area of a little over $100,000 per unit. That’s where we want to stay. If there is any price change, we will not be part of those negotiations.

Also, through the socio-economic arrangements, those negotiations are ongoing through the regulatory process. We are working with the parties at the table to find a way where we can have a win/win situation. In order for everyone to win on this one, we have to have a product that everybody feels comfortable with, not only at the front end but at the back end, such as residents of the communities, CHMC and ourselves. At the end of the day, it has to meet the requirements we are asking for at the front end. Again, we are still in negotiations until we nail down that actual price, and the price has to come in at a certain set amount. We have put those calls out that we will not go into this thing if it is going to cost us more than we are already investing. It’s the same with CMHC. They will not take a product that does not meet CMHC standards. So they have to meet that standard, too. There are these demands out there and we are still in negotiations.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time, I would like to request that we report progress and continue tomorrow. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. I take that as a motion. The motion is in order. It’s not debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

I will now rise and report progress.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Bill 18, Appropriation Act, 2006-2007, and Committee Report 7-15(4) and would like to report progress and, Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of Committee of the Whole be concurred with. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Is there a seconder to the motion? The honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. McLeod. The motion is in order. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Weledeh, that Bill 13, An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act, be read for the third time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 14, Public Airports Act, be read for the third time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Orders of the day for Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 11:00 a.m.:

Prayer

Ministers' Statements

Members' Statements

Returns to Oral Questions

Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery

Oral Questions

Written Questions

Returns to Written Questions

Replies to Budget Address

Petitions

Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills

Tabling of Documents

Notices of Motion

Notices of Motion for First Reading of Bills

First Reading of Bills

Second Reading of Bills

Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters

- Committee Report 5-15(4), Standing Committee on

Accountability and Oversight Report on the 2006-

2007 Pre-Budget Review Process

- Committee Report 6-15(4), Standing Committee on

Governance and Economic Development Report

on the 2006-2007 Pre-Budget Review Process

- Committee Report 7-15(4), Standing Committee on

Social Programs Report on the 2006-2007 Pre-

Budget Review Process

- Bill 18, Appropriation Act, 2006-2007

Report of Committee of the Whole

Third Reading of Bills

Orders of the Day

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Tuesday, February 7, 2006, at 11:00 a.m.

---ADJOURNMENT

The House adjourned at 17:58 p.m.