Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. While I can admit there is a real need for increase in support for renewable energy in our great, vast Northwest Territories, just the way the motion is written there I cannot be in support of full reinstatement of $15 million annually, given we’re deliberating the budget and we know the reality of this coming fiscal year and the future. Especially when I have real capital needs for my people in my small and remote communities.
I spoke often right from the get-go of my two favourite words: Highway No. 7 – zero capital dollars there; I need schools in Trout Lake and Nahanni Butte; housing initiatives have to be addressed. I do know that every time we put an initiative like this and ask for $15 million annually, it takes away from the consideration of capital needs in my small and remote communities because we have to compete for those same dollars.
In that sense I cannot support this motion. I do know that we did spend $60 million and I do acknowledge that my riding and communities did benefit from the initiatives in exploring solar in-stream electricity, geothermal exploration and, indeed, biomass initiatives. I still think that with the $5 million we have available we can achieve this within our budget. I try not to build up our Cabinet too much, but there is a willingness, I believe, that they can work with our committee to discuss the needs identified in Mr. Bromley’s motion. I think there is a willingness and I look forward to deliberating with Cabinet as we work towards solutions of indeed increasing support for our renewable energy resources.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have a couple situations here in the Northwest Territories. We have the Inuvik situation and we have the Norman Wells situation coming up. The general rate applications, we’re just increasing the cost of living for our residents. As stated, the more northern you get and the more isolated in the communities you get, the higher the cost is going to be. The government continues to subsidize the communities and some of the rates that they have to pay when we can actually be investing in some cost savings. I’m in support of this motion and as we move forward we have to look at how we have to help the people of the Northwest Territories and the businesses. Sometimes when you look at our small communities, the small businesses that have to pay these power costs, we have to find ways where we can continue for our small businesses to succeed and continue to contribute to our economies.
There were comments here and anytime that I hear Members talking about not supporting this issue and putting capital over livelihood – there was a comment there where we put capital over people’s livelihood – that’s not what we should be doing.
I thank Mr. Bromley and Mr. Blake for bringing this motion to the House and it’s one way that we start investing with this government with the funding to go into these cost savings for our people. It’s all about the people of the Northwest Territories.
I would invite Yellowknife Members to go into the communities to see. When I made a Member’s statement the other day, I said it has to be the communities that are the backbone of this government and not just the capital. One of my colleagues made reference to the high cost of living in Tuktoyaktuk. Go to Ulukhaktok and Paulatuk and see how those people can make it paycheque to paycheque. It’s true.
I was disappointed in hearing some of our Members not supporting such an initiative that should be common sense. I’m in support of this motion.
Another thing I was a little disappointed with was that the money was taken out of the budgets for energy programs when we’re looking through the business plans. I was also a little disappointed to see that this government allocated $100,000 to Inuvik residents with the situation that they’re in when it’s a bigger issue than just money put in there. Hopefully we can find solutions to that.
I would rather this government continue to pay all this money into this and find ways we can save costs and protect our people of the Northwest Territories, especially the people in the small communities. Like I said, I’m in support of this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, am in support of this motion. I believe that this is a long-term investment for the Northwest Territories. It seems we have become dependent on non-renewable resources. It’s quite clear. We need to begin our research into renewable resources and whether it’s producing our own wood pellets here in the Northwest Territories. We also need to fully support those communities that are stepping forward to champion these projects. For example, as Mr. Yakeleya stated, we have turbine energy in the Bear River. We also have the community of Tuktoyaktuk that is looking into wind energy. We also have solar energy in, I believe, Fort Simpson and Whati. These are first steps and we have to think long term. We cannot become dependent on non-renewable resources because they won’t last forever. We need to take advantage of the resources that we have here in the Northwest Territories that are rich. For example, I think we’re the only ones, next to Nunavut, who have 24-hour daylight. We need to take full advantage of these resources.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would first like to thank Mr. Bromley for bringing it forward. There’s no doubt his passion to energy and renewable resources is very evident in the House. We’ve heard him speak many times. And to the seconder of the motion Mr. Blake.
When one looks at this motion, one sees a very broad-brush approach to energy initiatives and looking at solutions thereof. It’s very difficult sometimes to provide something for everyone when you look at a motion of that magnitude, so I would like to break that motion up into some components before I make my decision here known.
Really, at the end of the day, no one wants to take away from the alternative energy sources that we have out in the North. A lot of them have done very well in small communities, and small circumstances, and created employment, and has had some significance in lowering some of the energy costs. As I mentioned in the House not that many days ago, I mentioned that some of these initiatives are sometimes nothing more than throwing rice at a freight train, especially when we’re talking about the urban problems in the Northwest Territories. Again there were comments that came back from the other side of the House, but really in the essence that was very true. The urban centres cannot afford to go into large-scale alternative energies because the economies of scale do not make sense. We need to look at something bigger. We need something of a higher dividend. That is where this motion does pay tribute to that with respect to transmission lines. I still stand firm on that. That is truly the panacea of our energy problems for the future and our dependency on fossil fuels.
With that in mind, I will be voting in favour of the motion under the pretense that with that the Taltson expansion transmission lines be the forefront and the hydro initiative become very, very important to this government. I will be voting in favour of this motion with a DOT road sign that says “Proceed with Extreme Caution.”
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the Members, as well, for their input into this motion. In this House as legislators we have a number of tasks before us. We make laws and set up programs and policies, and we administer budgets for the good of all the people. We have to take not only the short view of what’s happening around us but we have to plan, as the Member for Mackenzie Delta said, for the future.
When we started this Assembly we had a plan. We were elected into a reality, a reality where we were coming out of a very significant recession where we spent $1.1 billion in capital for over three years. At the same time, part of that was $60 million over four years, knowing as we did this that we were engaged in a process that was not sustainable in the long term, that we would deplete our cash reserves because we needed to step into the breach as the private sector struggled through the downturn.
When we came into the 17th Assembly, we started a plan that would see us in year one and two maintaining fiscal discipline so that in year three and four we would be able to add more money into infrastructure. We came into this Assembly with our capital budget for government diminished to $75 million. Last year Transportation’s budget during the $1.1 billion time was over $150 million itself.
In order to get to enhance the $75 million, we agreed that we would do a number of things: that we would put $1.4 billion to programs and services; that we would protect the programs and services to the people; that we would negotiate good collective agreements that would give us labour peace; and that we would look for efficiencies to add and replenish our cash reserves, because we are obligated under policy that we have – fiscal responsibility policy – to fund half of our capital by savings generated from operations. We’ve started that program and that process. We are currently $656 million in debt. Our borrowing limit is $800 million. We can easily eat up that $144 million on very many good projects, processes, programs and investments.
If we do and we do it right now and we do not manage our way through this and stick to a long-term plan, we are going to have very little flexibility to do anything going forward that would allow us to begin to address some of the other broad issues we have.
The Member for Inuvik Boot Lake commented about we have to focus on programs. We do, and we’re putting $1.4 billion in there. We know we have a health centre and a long-term care facility that’s supposed to go into Norman Wells. We know Stanton is supposed to be fixed, $200 million-plus. We have $144 million borrowing room between now and the $800 million.
We all agree that we have to make this shift, that we are in transition on the type of energy we use, minimizing our reliance on fossil fuels, and we invested $60 million, but we also have to manage within the times that we are in, the fiscal times that we are in.
Yes, I would love to be able to stand up and put more money into a number of things, into all sorts of energy projects, but we do not have the fiscal flexibility. I would love to be able to tell the Minister of Health that yes, there is money for midwifery, that we can build more treatment centres, that we can do all this and still address our projected $3 billion capital infrastructure deficit, the passionate Member for Nahendeh with Highway No. 7.
We are in the business of making choices and we are continuing a lot of the work that we started. Not to the level that we would like, but we are continuing. Public Works and Services and the territorial government are going to do all their retrofits. They’re moving on that. It’s generating savings. They’ve set up a type of revolving fund to help pay for that. We’re continuing to invest in solar. We’re continuing to invest in biomass. We’re working with a private individual that wants to set up a pellet plant in the Northwest Territories, which is the second step of our plan with biomass – build the market, build the industry. We’re on that track. We want to invest in wind. We want to continue to invest in geothermal, and we’re doing it to the level that we are able.
We will come back with an energy plan. We’ll come back with an energy plan that will tell you that yes, if we are serious about our Economic Development Strategy and our Mineral Strategy in the North and South Slave. For us to do that project, expand the Taltson by 50-some megawatts and run a transmission line to hook the North and South Slave together, the Taltson and Snare grid, three-quarters of a billion dollars. We know that, because that was the approximate cost of the project to take the transmission line all the way to the mines. But it’s a critical piece that needs to get done, so we have to figure out how we’re going to do that.
We’re going to come forward with the Solar Strategy that’s going to say we would like to make a 10 percent penetration into every thermal community to cut their costs on diesel. We’ve done it in Simpson. We know it works. The technology is there. We’re not breaking trail. There’s going to be a payback there. We’re going to diminish our demand on diesel by 10 percent. We have to make that case.
We know we have to sort out Inuvik. Inuvik, if we just go straight gas right now, then we’d be writing a cheque for $50 million to $80 million. Where in all these main estimates in this document are we going to find that kind of money?
Our decision here is to make a number of choices. In this case, in energy, we’re making investments. We’re going to continue to make investments. We’re going to come back with the plan that will allow us, if we maintain fiscal discipline and if we agree we need partners on the big projects, to go forward in year three and four. If we rush to spend our way through the borrowing limit that we do have, I am telling you right now that we will have no flexibility left for the last couple years of this government. We have to make choices and we have to stay on target. We can do this, but we can’t do it all in the first budget. I’m asking here for people to consider that and remember that.
We started this process on that understanding, and we are fully and deeply committed to trying to save the money we need to put a few dollars extra into infrastructure. When you balance programs and services, money versus capital, there’s a huge difference: $1.4 billion on programs and services. We’re having a $75 million capital budget for 42,000 people to try to erode and eat away at a projected $3 billion deficit. We have to be able to say collectively there are many things we want to do. We are going to do just about all of them, but how fast can we do them?
I’m asking today, in the enthusiasm of the moment of everybody standing up to say let’s spend that money, let’s take it away from the $144 million. Let’s knock that $144 million down for this motion, and are there others coming? I have no idea. Let’s knock that $144 million down to $130 million, $120 million, $100 million, and in year one, by the end of two weeks, where will we be? We will be hamstrung. Then the choice left to us for any flexibility is going to be what we’re working so hard to avoid, which is program cuts and layoffs.
As we look across the land, let’s pick a country. Let’s pick Spain today, teetering on the brink of insolvency. Look at the provinces around us. We’ve managed our way through this to avoid those types of circumstances by being careful, by collectively managing our way through difficult circumstances and recognizing that we have to make choices.
Today this motion is well intentioned and it speaks to what we all want to do. We just have to pace it properly, sequence it properly, lay it out properly so we can deal with this issue. At the same time, the myriad of other issues that are going to come before us in a way that is going to allow us as the 17th Assembly to put our fiscal house in order, address a lot of issues, so that when we hand off the torch to the 18th Assembly, we’re going to hand off the government in better shape, hopefully, than when we found it.
This is a recommendation to Cabinet, so we will be abstaining, but rest assured, we’re listening carefully. We will come back in about five months with a broader plan on energy, but today I just ask everybody to just keep the context of what got us here, how we started our journey and the decisions that we have to make along the way so that we don’t get caught up in the excitement of the moment and forget those broad pieces, because they are critical. We share the same goals; we just have to figure out collectively how we get there in a sustainable way. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the motion. Final comments, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to all who offered their comments and perspectives here.
Mr. Speaker, this Assembly did come out with some understanding and Cabinet developed a direction on that basis. Personally, I know many of my colleagues think that Cabinet has done a very good job in bringing many aspects of this budget forward, but they are not infallible and Members on this side of the House are moved to influence about half a percent of the budget. If some of this is an increase, so be it, but I assure the Minister and all that we’re not proposing this lightly and we do regard this as a perspective that will give us returns and that we cannot afford to not do.
We hear about how the bridge will be paying down its debt this fall and so we can be writing things off the books there. We’ve negotiated a higher debt limit. Obviously, these things will all help and provide some opportunity. Basically we are convinced that our recommendations are fiscally responsible and, indeed, more so than burying our heads in the sand on this issue and opportunity this fiscal year.
We want a renewed plan. Yes, we’re looking forward to that and we’re looking forward to working with the Minister in developing that, but we also have plans in place that need dollars now. We have many plans, a Biomass Plan and so on. The Minister mentioned several of them and we cannot abandon these.
This is not a surprise. We have said this consistently and recently to the Minister, and the Minister was open to responding if we were to come forward with one voice, and we’re doing that.
I want to just address some of the comments I’ve heard as well, comments like this is an environmental initiative that doesn’t make sense and so on, there’s no return on an investment. Earlier we have discussed the revolving fund, the Capital Asset and Revolving Fund, which is a government fund established to collect and reinvest savings from renewable energy initiatives, energy efficiency initiatives that this government has done. A tip of the hat to the government for that. Just about, as I said, essentially every project we’ve undertaken has indeed saved us money as well as provided many other benefits. So the sorts of comments that came out, that there are no benefits here are completely off base, and I think the evidence is clear that these are beneficial projects. Again, it’s unaffordable not to address these issues.
On the point that a couple of people have made that we have made mistakes, I think there’s no question about that. That’s part of doing business and it’s our job to bring those to the forefront and I think we’ve done a good job of that, but we also want to learn from our mistakes and move forward based on that new knowledge.
The Taltson project itself, I agree, we were off base on the general direction we were taking, but we really did do a lot of productive work and we need to make use of that work and put that into operation, and that’s exactly what this motion is meant to do, is provide the resources for that.
This motion is indeed about the cost of living. It can be portrayed as an environmental initiative and so on and there are certain environmental benefits that accrue from that, but there are many others: the cost of living, economic stimulation and so on. I believe the public, as some people have mentioned, some of my colleagues have mentioned, there’s a public expectation of leadership here and this motion is meant to respond to that expectation.
What some of my colleagues see as challenges, many of us see as opportunities and we want to move on those opportunities. The strategies for projects developed have been laid out, the Biomass Strategy, the Hydro Strategy, the Energy Plan, which is being renewed this year, Energy for the Future and so on. There are a lot of documents in place to allow this to go forward.
Power rates, as has been mentioned, will continue to soar if we maintain our current course. The projects to be completed are producing increasing dilemmas, and examples here in communities are certainly the Norman Wells and the Inuvik situation. We want to start addressing those in really sustainable ways on a bottom line basis.
A couple of my colleagues, at least, have mentioned in the North expenses are much higher. Let’s focus our initial efforts on where those costs are highest. Let’s put the focus on those communities. We do have a big income disparity, a big disparity in economic development in our communities. Let’s focus first on those communities that are at the low end of that range and that need the economic stimulation. I fully agree with those points and I thank my colleagues for raising them.
So we want new resources put into this, but we want to have input based on the lessons learned from the 16th Assembly towards more effective delivery of initiatives. It’s not so much the huge projects that I think we need as a methodical, knowledgeable and thoughtful building on the successes that we’ve had to date, and there are many.
I’d like to refer to Mr. Nadli’s vision on a renewable energy future. It’s something to shoot for. Let’s get a start on that.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The Member is seeking a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.
Mr. Bromley, Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Blake, Mr. Dolynny, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Nadli, Mr. Moses.
All those opposed, please stand.
Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Menicoche.
All those abstaining, please stand.
Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. McLeod - Yellowknife South, Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. McLeod - Inuvik Twin Lakes.
Results of the recorded vote: yes, seven; no, two; seven abstentions.
---Carried
Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that notwithstanding Rule 4, when this House adjourns on May 31, 2012, it shall be adjourned until Monday June 4, 2012;
AND FURTHER, that any time prior to June 4, 2012, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with Executive Council and Members of the Legislative Assembly, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at a time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as it has been duly adjourned to that time.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Motion is on the floor. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called.
---Carried
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that Bill 2, Miscellaneous Statute Amendment Act, 2012, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill corrects inconsistencies and errors in statutes of the Northwest Territories. The bill deals with other matters of a minor, noncontroversial and uncomplicated nature in the statutes and repeals provisions that cease to have effect. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. To the principal of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 2, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2012, has had second reading and is referred to a committee.
---Carried
Item 21, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 2-17(3), Commissioner’s Opening Address: Creating the Conditions for Success; Tabled Document 3-17(3), Northwest Territories Main Estimates 2012-2013; and Bill 1, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act, with Ms. Bisaro in the chair. By the authority given to me as Speaker by Motion 2-17(3), I hereby authorize the House to sit beyond the daily hour of adjournment to consider business that we have before the House. Thank you.
Committee, we’ll come to order. We have three items for consideration. Tabled Document 2-17(3), Commissioner’s Opening Address: Creating the Conditions for Success; Tabled Document 3-17(3), Northwest Territories Main Estimates 2012-2013; and Bill 1, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act. What is the wish of committee? Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Committee wishes to resume consideration of Tabled Document 3-17(3), Northwest Territories Main Estimates 2012-2013, to continue on with Transportation, Environment and Natural Resources and, time permitting, Industry, Tourism and Investment.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
We will resume after a short break.
---SHORT RECESS
Welcome back, committee. We are dealing with the Department of Transportation, page 11-21. Minister Ramsay, do you have witnesses you wish to bring into the House?
Yes, I do, Madam Chair.
Committee, do we agree to bring the witnesses into the House?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Sergeant-at-Arms, would you escort the witnesses into the Chamber, please?
Minister Ramsay, could you introduce your witnesses for the record, please?
Thank you, Madam Chair. To my right I have Mr. Russell Neudorf, deputy minister of Department of Transportation. To my left, Mr. Daniel Auger, assistant deputy minister of Department of Transportation.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. We are on page 11-21, Transportation, activity summary, highways, operations expenditure summary, $67.844 million. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome back to the delegation, Mr. Ramsay. On this page the term “other” does stand out and there is a somewhat large increase in main estimates from 2011-2012. Can the Minister give this House an indication why the increase and maybe indicate what is the itemized list of the so-called “other”?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Under “other” the majority of that would be for the Deh Cho Bridge interest expense and chargeback expenses.
If I can get the Minister or someone from the department here to clarify exactly what that meant.
Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Underneath this “other” line item we record the expense for the debt that was associated with the Deh Cho Bridge. The amount there of $8.076 million is the amount of funding that’s required to pay the principal and interest on the $165.4 million bonds that were issued for the Deh Cho Bridge.
Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. I kind of thought we’d gotten rid of “other” but apparently it’s resurfaced. Mr. Dolynny.
