Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just have one question here and it involves the Arctic Energy Alliance. We, and I can’t remember in how many other budgets, but I think certainly within ENR the government provides a contribution to the Arctic Energy Alliance. So I’m trying to understand why we have a contribution here under MACA and another contribution under ENR and maybe somewhere else. I can’t quite remember; it might be in ITI as well. Why do we as a government not make one contribution to Arctic Energy Alliance in one place, one department for wherever the government decides it should be? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. For that we’ll go to Ms. Young.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The departments that belong to Arctic Energy Alliance all have four membership fees and then there are other programs that government departments sponsor and provide money to AEA for.
You may remember a few years ago there was community energy planning funding dedicated in the MACA budget where we provided $150,000 a year to the Arctic Energy Alliance to support energy planning in communities. That money has since sunsetted, but other departments continue to fund specific programs within the alliance.
I guess I’m struggling to understand, and I would just ask the Minister to discuss with his other ministerial cohorts, why it could not be just one lump sum. It may be targeted for programs, it may be targeted for base funding, but it doesn’t make much sense to me that we’ve got three pots of money. As the Minister knows, I’ve said that before.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Member staying off youth and moving on to this one. I will commit to Ms. Bisaro that I will have a discussion with my colleagues as to why we have three different pots. If we can pool them into one, then I will commit to Ms. Bisaro that is something we will do before the next budget cycle.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Page 6-14, Municipal and Community Affairs, activity summary, directorate, grants, $168,000, contributions, $470,000, total grants and contributions, $638,000. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Something I didn’t get an answer on and I was sort of looking for some detail – yes, I can go to the website to find out who sits there, assuming it’s current – what are voting rights when the deputy minister was speaking to that? Maybe if you could help explain what those privileges do from a departmental point of view.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. For that we’ll go to Mr. Williams.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As any board of governors, voting rights would be passing administrative policies for the alliance, any projects. The Arctic Energy Alliance gets involved in some consulting work and we would approve any future projects that the Energy Alliance should entertain. Most recently we had the last board meeting, for example, the Government of Nunavut wishes to join the Arctic Energy Alliance, so we had to vote on that decision to allow them to become a member of the Arctic Energy Alliance.
Then it sounds like it operates like a normal board. By the same token, do certain representatives not have voting rights? I find it odd that you’d point it out, and why would people not have voting rights?
Certain members don’t have voting rights and it’s on the level of contribution that you provide to the organization. They are just members of general interest but still want to partake in board meetings, and get information and provide some guidance to the Arctic Energy Alliance.
Under this activity it’s a bulk number of $470,000. I’m wondering what the actual breakout is between the three activities. Are there multiple activities that may not even be seen under this area? Can I get a breakout as to what the funding contribution goes to? In other words, community association gets what, government administrators get what, et cetera?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. For that we’ll go to Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It will be my pleasure. The NWT Association of Communities gets $240,000. Local Government Administrators of the Northwest Territories get $180,000. Arctic Energy Alliance gets $50,000.
Although we’re still under the directorate, and I harken back without going to the page that is under the direct to be description, we have strategic planning and policy support. When I draw that to our attention here, do we use our support mechanisms to develop policy or policy initiatives, in relation to direction given to Arctic Energy Alliance?
No, not for the Arctic Energy Alliance.
Then what role does MACA actually play other than a contributor of financial resources to the Arctic Energy Alliance? What do they actually contribute to the board? Obviously, other than its physical membership, does the department itself provide any support or mechanisms and, as such, why are they on the board if they’re not providing any strategic advice or policy or direction for initiatives?
MACA sits as a very active member on the board. As our deputy has pointed out, he sits as the vice-president. We’re a very active member.
How does the Arctic Energy Alliance move… Well, let me ask it this way. Does MACA, as a department, propose any policy initiatives that are taken up or dealt with at the Arctic Energy Alliance board?
We always act in the best interest of community governments.
I’m not sure what that actually meant but I will assume that means something, but it didn’t answer my question. Does MACA provide any policy direction or make proposals from the departmental point of view at the board level of the Arctic Energy Alliance and, if so, what kind of examples?
Not currently, and we’re not sure of things that have gone on in the past before. Our deputy became vice-chair. I guess the answer would be I just don’t know.
I’m just trying to understand why we have a departmental head on the board and what relationship it has with the department other than being a funding source. If the government sat on every board we were a funding source for, we would be on the Centre for Northern Families, we’d be on the John Howard Society, we’d be on all these boards. I’m just trying to understand the role. Maybe if the Minister could provide a better description as to why MACA… I think this is a fair question probably for every department, it’s just one that has popped up as the obvious for this department, is what role does MACA itself play on the Arctic Energy Alliance board. I’m just trying to get a sense of what value they bring. If you’re not bringing policy advice and strategic resources from the department, and this is not any criticism towards the activity and energy that the deputy brings, I’m just trying to understand the role of MACA, why the MACA hat is there at the table.
MACA plays a valuable role on the board and our deputy takes part in a lot of the discussions that go on there as to what type of programs they should be looking at. We play a valuable role on the board. We’re not just a financial contributor. I can gather more information and do a little bit of research, and I’ll be happy to sit down with the Member and share my findings with him.
I’d be happy to accept the Minister’s offer if he wants to make it official.
I’ve already committed to sitting down with the Member and having a very good, frank discussion on the role that we play in the Arctic Energy Alliance and any other part of MACA department. I’ll be more than happy to sit with the Member and we can have a good discussion.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Page 6-14, Municipal and Community Affairs, activity summary, directorate, grants and contributions, grants, $168,000, contributions, $470,000, total grants and contributions, $638,000.
Agreed.
Page 6-15, Municipal and Community Affairs, information item, directorate, active positions.
Agreed.
Page 6-17, Municipal and Community Affairs, activity summary, public safety, operations expenditure summary, $1.629 million. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the Fire Prevention Act, they appear to review plans for new construction. Can the Minister explain how this gets done if you happen to be somebody who lives in a community?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. We’ll go to Mr. Williams.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For reviewing of plans at the community level, we have assistant fire marshals in every region. They work closely with their plan review officer based in headquarters. That is the mechanism we use utilizing our AFMs at the regional level.
What region specifically is the deputy minister referring to?
We have assistant fire marshals in all five regions.
How do we deal with site inspections on these particular initiatives? When the plans are submitted, sometimes site inspections are required.
Our assistant fire marshals travel out to all communities in their regions. They do regular inspections as required and as requested. That’s the way we deliver service at the regional level.
What is the cost of that particular travel based on, or who actually pays for it if you’re outside of the specific community the assistant fire marshal is placed?
Each of our regional budgets has a travel budget allocated for community travel. Our role as MACA is to support community governments, so our travel budget dictates to that so we ensure it is in the work plan that we have community visits outlined on an annual basis of what communities we have to visit.
What types of requirements or parameters are put on timely visits? There must be some constraints as to when something is filed and needs to be reviewed in person. What type of travel requirements or constraints around the code causes the travel or necessity to get out to site visits?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. For that we’ll go to Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Usually when there’s a request to have a site visit, we would go in. If the Member wants more detail, then I’d be happy to have a briefing note put together for him.
I’d be happy to hear that. The travel is $165,000 on this under the public safety division, but I’m not sure if that’s all applied to fire prevention. Maybe if I could get a sense of what the travel budget is for the five regions that need to make these community visits.
I’m sure you’ll notice in MACA’s budget that we have travel in there, and part of our duties as MACA is to get out and visit all the communities and work with the communities as many times as is requested for us to go in and work with the communities. They prefer face to face as far as the public safety division goes. They have to go travel around for helping communities with their emergency plans and helping put together their emergency plans. We get a lot of requests from the communities for our staff to go in and meet with communities. That’s why our travel budgets are the way they are.
Under fire prevention section to do community visits on the five regions, what type of travel budget is associated with this?
I’ll get the detail and provide it to the Member.
Under emergency management, a few years ago one of the safety management people, personnel, under EMO section was laid off due to setbacks in the government. I think there were 100-and-some positions; 130 were originally eyed to be rolled away. I’m just wondering, under the scale-back, has emergency management grown or, specific to it, what is its present composition of personnel? I’ll start with that.
We did a reorg and we re-staffed that.
