Debates of June 6, 2006 (day 6)

Agreed.

Thank you. Executive, continued, operations expenditures, Human Resources, not previously authorized, directorate, $61,000; total Human Resources, $61,000.

Agreed.

Thank you. Executive, continued, operations expenditures, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, not previously authorized, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, $8,000; total Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, $8,000; total department, $107,000.

Agreed.

Thank you. Department of Finance, operations expenditures, not previously authorized, directorate, $6,000; total department, $6,000.

Agreed.

Thank you. Onto the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, not previously authorized, directorate, $58,000.

Agreed.

Community operations, $35.882 million.

Agreed.

Lands administration, $297,000. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With the information provided in the bill, it is suggested here that $297,000 be allocated to provide funding for the continuation of land development projects funded by infrastructure contributions. An offsetting amount was lapsed from last year for $47,000. The area I wanted to ask about, Madam Chair, was providing funding to complete the remediation plan for the common areas of the Con and Rycon trailer courts. The detail provided says, "The remediation costs will be recovered from the revenues received from the land leases entered into with the residents of the trailer courts." The amount requested, Madam Chair, is $250,000. We were advised that the total cost of reclamation and remediation for the Con and Rycon trailer courts was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $900,000, Madam Chair. The aspect I wanted to inquire about was whether or not or just how, as the detail suggests here, the remediation costs will be covered from the revenues received from land uses.

When the GNWT leases land, Madam Chair, does the revenue go towards specific projects or purposes as suggested in the bill, or does it go into general revenue? It’s a bit of a process or procedure technical question, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the process is the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs was tasked with dealing with the land remediation out at the Con and Rycon trailer court area. One of the reasons why it was proceeded with is it was based on the initial plan that there was going to be a recovery to that. This is the area on the land that is multiple use or not specifically on each property. Each property owner would have to take care of their own. This would deal with other common areas within those areas. It was established that there would be a recovery to this. That was approved. The money and leases that would come to the government would then go into general revenue.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

So there is no direct application, or the leaseholders here aren’t being assessed a certain portion of these remediation costs over time. A lease fee structure has been determined. That money goes into general revenue and that department gets what it needs from general revenue to fix the job here. What I am trying to determine here, Madam Chair, is are the people who are the tenants on these leases being charged directly or indirectly for the cost of remediation as opposed to a standard lease which has a standard fee structure and a regular way of handling it, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In this case, the leases that are there would incorporate the cost for this work that’s been done and we’ve approved the money upfront so they can get the work completed. As it’s recovered, it would go back into the general revenues. So in a sense, those who have leases in that area would pay additional cost tied to their leases. So the leases would be renewed and the term of the leases would incorporate the remediation that has been done. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

That’s all. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Page 11, Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, not previously authorized, directorate, $58,000; community operations, $35.822 million; lands administration, $297,000.

Agreed.

Page 12, Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, not previously authorized, regional operations, $11.070 million.

Agreed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that $100,000 be deleted from the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs regional operations activity in Supplementary Appropriation, No. 1, 2006-2007 dealing with the Icicle Inn.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The motion is in order. The motion is being circulated, so we will just wait one moment.

I believe the motion has now been circulated to the Members. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the reason we are suggesting that this be deleted from MACA’s regional operations activity that appears in the supplementary appropriation is the government has taken over responsibility for the building and the land that it sits on and is also responsible, as we are told, for environmental liability and remediation work that has to take place on that property. We weren’t, as a group, satisfied that the government should accept that type of responsibility in taking over this property. That is the reason this motion is before us.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion.

Madam Chair, what I was hoping for was in the course of this discussion that we could get some answers to the area of liability here, which is really what I need to determine before I can vote on this. I would like to find out about what kind of liability we assume here and why did we allow ourselves to be put in this position, it seems, Madam Chair, of a liability for something that may not have been our cause? I need that information before I can vote. Can you help us get it? Thank you.

Yes, hmm. This is an interesting process issue. The whole idea of having the motion was to ensure and facilitate some debate on these items that are being promoted for being deleted. Now that the motion is on the floor, I don’t know what the process is for the Minister to answer any questions about that. Pardon?

Okay, the Minister could speak to the motion at some point here, but maybe what we will do is ask the Minister to take note of a few comments here. To the motion, Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was hoping I could find out a few more answers with regard to the environmental aspect of it. I don’t know if it is going to cost $100,000 to do an assessment, but I was hoping there would be other ways to look at it. I am sort of like Mr. Braden, I would like to find out answers in terms of how come it’s costing so much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be voting with the motion to delete that amount. What concerns me on this is it seems like a lot of money for investigation to a problem that I am not sure is our fault. The bottom line is if we have assumed an asset through whatever process, did we assume the liability with that knowingly? If we did, I guess we are on the hook for this money. On the hook, I should say, for the cleanup. As far as I am concerned, I don’t think that’s been satisfied at this stage to say that it should be our fault. I think this should be taken back through proper channels to our federal colleagues and have them address it through their process. I hope they knowingly didn’t give us something that had a problem and hope that we would never find out about it or realize that maybe we will be on the hook to clean it up and they sit there and laugh in Ottawa and say we snuck another one under the territorial government’s eye and made them responsible.

So I will be voting for the deletion with the message that I hope the department is listening. I would like to see some legwork done to see who really is responsible for this before we send out a $100,000 investigation team to get further details on this potential spill or potential hydro contaminant problem. I am just not confident at this stage that the work has been done to satisfy me that it’s our responsibility. Like I say, I will be voting with my colleagues on this side of the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Braden.

Madam Chair, thank you. I guess I would just reiterate my curiosity about the background on this and hope that in the course of this debate or discussion, the Minister could provide some information on the extent, potential extent, of our liability here and how it is that we arrived at seemingly taking responsibility. My information, Madam Chair, for instance, is that this particular property was something that was established by perhaps the American military or the Canadian military years and years ago and contains a lot of materials of the time; lead paint, asbestos, probably hydrocarbon contamination. Yet we seem to be accepting responsibility for this. So unless I hear some information today that tells me otherwise and gives me some reason for supporting this $100,000 proposal to develop a plan, I have to vote against it. I am not confident that we are really where we need to be in assuming this responsibility on behalf of taxpayers.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. I think the rules indicate that people can speak to the motion once. I think we may have just given Mr. Braden a chance to speak to it twice.

Whoa!

Mr. Ramsay, to the motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is the second time and the last time. That’s right, I am closing it up.

Madam Chair, perhaps we could go to Minister Roland.

Alright. Members do have the option of voting to delete if they have the information requester hasn’t been satisfied, but maybe Mr. Roland can solve some of this for us. To the motion, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to the motion that’s been put forward of wanting to delete that amount for environmental assessment and prepare a remediation plan for the buildings that have been surrendered on the land and property known as Icicle Inn at Sachs Harbour. The department is requesting $100,000. This fell into their lap in a sense through a process that involves property taxes and the amount there. The Government of the Northwest Territories, due to arrears on that property, took that property over. There are a number of buildings that were built by the federal government. There is a weather station in 1954 and again more work was done in 1980 on that area.

There is work, as they do this remediation, to find out what, in fact, it entails. There are avenues that are going to be pursued about how much the federal government we feel may be responsible for. So that is something that is going to be looked at. The fact is, it is within the municipal boundary. It is on Commissioner’s land within the community of Sachs Harbour. The process, again, was initiated through a tax arrears situation that we ended up with the property. Knowing the situation here, we are in a position where we have to do an assessment of that and come up with a remediation plan. Once we have that, there are possible avenues to try and have the federal government pay for some of the actual areas of remediation that need to be done. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. I guess the rules indicate that people can only speak to the motion once. It doesn’t matter if you were the mover of the motion, you still only get to speak to it once in Committee of the Whole. That’s not the rule in the House, in the Chamber, when we are in session, but in Committee of the Whole that is the rule. I hope that provides you with enough information. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour of the motion to delete? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, not previously authorized, regional operations, $11.070 million.

Agreed.