Thank you, Madam Chair. These bonds, which I know are being held or were assumed by this government as a result of taking over the Deh Cho Bridge Project, would we assume that this expense will be a recurrent entry every year and is there an amortization where that will not occur in the future?
The bonds were issued to be repaid over a period of 35 years. After that time those repayments would stop.
If memory serves me right - and again could I get confirmation here by the department - these bonds are not really subject to interest rates and are more so tied to CPI. As long as CPI stays relatively the same or close to what we see today, could we presume that this amount will remain very stable throughout this 35-year life of this amortization or expense debt?
These bonds are real return bonds, so there is, as the Member indicated, an inflationary component to them. The repayment schedule was actually sculptured when the debt was initially issued so that the total repayment also increases every year with inflation. So we would expect that this would, the repayment required every year would go up by the amount of inflation.
No further questions on that line.
Thank you. Page 11-21, Transportation, activity summary, highways, operations expenditure summary, $67.844 million.
Agreed.
Page 11-22, Transportation, activity summary, highways, grants and contributions, grants, total grants, $96,000.
Agreed.
Page 11-23, Transportation, activity summary, information item, highways, active positions.
Agreed.
Page 11-25, Transportation, activity summary, marine, operations expenditure summary, $8.042 million.
Agreed.
Page 11-26, Transportation, activity summary, information item, marine, active positions.
Agreed.
Page 11-29, Transportation, activity summary, Community Access Program, operations expenditure summary, $1.008 million.
Agreed.
Page 11-30, Transportation, activity summary, Community Access Program, grants and contributions, contributions, total contributions, $980,000.
Agreed.
Page 11-33, Transportation, activity summary, road licensing and safety, operations expenditure summary, $4.616 million.
Agreed.
Page 11-34, Transportation, activity summary, information item, road licensing and safety, active positions.
Agreed.
Page 11-36 and page 11-37, Transportation, information summary, work performed on behalf of others. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My question has to deal with the whole baggage system at the Yellowknife Airport. It appears that this is a recurrent entry that we see year after year with respect to hours charged back due to jamming. When I look at that number, which is a recurrent number, it’s a fairly large number. I’m wondering if there was any thought about maybe replacing this infrastructure to alleviate some of the extra costs we’re seeing in manpower and productivity.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Neudorf.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The item here is an agreement that we have with the airlines who pay for the operation maintenance of the whole baggage system there. It’s really for their benefit to help move luggage around. This we would expect to be a recurrent item every year.
I do appreciate Mr. Neudorf’s response. The question is if it is about faulty equipment, and if so, is this a recurrent issue that we see in similar sized airports with similar sized equipment?
I have a hard time believing that other airports would be incurring charges of this nature on a repeated process. I’m assuming that at one point in time they would fix the problem and not have to have these type of chargebacks. Again the question being: Is this a very similar occurrence we’re seeing in other airports of similar size, similar magnitude, similar situations, or is this just a unique situation that we’re seeing in Yellowknife?
We would expect to see similar types of arrangements in other airports. It’s the cost required to operate the system. It’s there on behalf of the airlines so it’s logical that they would pay for it. It is to have a person around that can take care of issues, challenges, when they come up. It’s also for the power to operate the system and those other miscellaneous expenses that would be required to operate the system.
Again, with all due respect, we would expect but we don’t know is pretty much the answer that I’m getting here. I would be looking for some type of commitment here from the department and the Minister to maybe do a little research in this area to see if… Again, it’s not a large line entry in the budget as a whole. It’s just more of an irritant to see that charge year after year. From a productivity standpoint it just seems a little bit uncanny. Can we get a commitment from the department here to research this for the Members here and find out maybe if it’s time to replace equipment to save us on some productivity costs?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It isn’t costing the Department of Transportation anything. That’s work performed on behalf of others. That is charged back to the air carriers. Perhaps the definition may have been a little bit confusing and we can work to get a better definition on what exactly that whole baggage system entails. It is work that’s done and paid for from air carriers using that service.
I thank the Minister for saying that. Even if it’s charged back, I can’t speak on behalf of the airlines, but if the airlines are out there listening, you may want to research this a little bit more as well.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. I’ll take that as a comment. Any further questions on pages 11-36 and 11-37?
Agreed.
Committee, we will return to page 11-7, Transportation, department summary, operations expenditure summary, $120.415 million.
Agreed.
Does committee agree that we are concluded the Department of Transportation?
Agreed.
Okay. We are concluded Transportation. We will move on…Yes. Thank you. Thank you to the witnesses for your attendance here. Sergeant-at-Arms, if you would please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber.
We had agreed that we would move on to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Mr. Miltenberger, do you have opening remarks?
Yes, Madam Chair, I do. I am pleased to speak to the 2012-2013 Main Estimates for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The plan proposes total operational expenses of $65.7 million for the upcoming year. This represents a 2.6 percent or $1.8 million reduction from last year’s budget.
As Members are aware, the mandate for the Department of Environment and Natural Resources is to promote and support the sustainable use and development of natural resources and to protect, conserve and enhance the NWT environment for the social and economic benefit of all NWT residents.
A range of activities are proposed to uphold this mandate and I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a few key investments planned for the upcoming fiscal year. In his speech from the throne, His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston highlighted Canada’s priority to renew and deepen its relationship with Canada’s Aboriginal peoples and underlined Canada’s commitment to promoting access to clean water and the deployment of clean energy technology in Aboriginal and northern communities. The GNWT is pleased to mirror that commitment.
We are investing $905,000 in this budget to support negotiations for transboundary water agreements to establish common principles for the cooperative management of the aquatic ecosystem of the Mackenzie River Basin. These agreements will ensure the quality and quantity of water entering the NWT from neighbouring jurisdictions remains substantially unaltered and will protect the ecological integrity of the Mackenzie River Basin, allowing Northerners to continue to choose a traditional way of life. Together with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, we continue to make progress on negotiations.
The department continues to work with a variety of water partners on community-based water monitoring initiatives identified in the NWT Water Stewardship Strategy and Action Plan. This fulfills our priority to build a strong and sustainable future for our territory by strengthening our relationships with Aboriginal and other northern communities.
Climate change remains a serious concern for NWT residents and the GNWT, and we continue to take action in this area. The department continues to implement the NWT Greenhouse Gas Strategy which identifies actions the GNWT, industry and communities can take over the next five years to stabilize territorial emissions at or below 2005 levels. It also highlights the importance of identifying measures that can be taken to limit increases and ultimately reduce emissions from non-renewable resource development activity.
The Arctic Energy Alliance works in partnership with the department to reduce the costs and environmental impacts of energy in the NWT. In 2012-2013 they will receive up to $1.8 million in contribution funding for ongoing energy planning, energy efficiency and energy conservation programs.
With that $1.8 million, the budget adds $200,000 towards regional energy advisors to visit communities to conduct home energy audits, training and workshops to ensure communities receive equitable access to Arctic Energy Alliance programming. In addition, a combined total of $650,000 in funding will allow the Alliance to continue to offer the Energy Efficiency Incentive Program, the Commercial Energy Conservation and Efficiency Program and provide focused assistance to residents of Inuvik over the next year.
The department is preparing a Solar Energy Strategy to be tabled this fall that coordinates our efforts to use this source of renewable energy. Building on the success of the Biomass Energy Strategy since 2010, the department is now evaluating the actions and will be tabling a revised version later in the fall.
The department continues to take action to reduce waste. The department is currently conducting an e-waste survey to determine the types and quantities of electronic items in NWT households and where residents purchase such items. The information from the e-waste survey, along with the inventory and feasibility study that is currently underway will form the basis for an e-waste management framework to be developed this fall.
The department’s proposed new Wildlife Act will help better protect, conserve and manage wildlife in the Northwest Territories. In 2012-2013, $500,000 will go towards public awareness and consultation on this new piece of legislation to ensure Aboriginal groups, the general public and various stakeholder groups have an opportunity to provide input into a new bill. A key aspect of this consultation is a Stakeholders Wildlife Act Advisory Group, which is already working to identify improvements to the proposed legislation. These funds will also provide officer training, development of new forms, permits and hunter education programs that will be needed to implement the new act.
The NWT Species at Risk Stewardship Program is now in its third year. The program provides funding for projects that support the long-term protection and recovery of species that are at risk or of concern in the NWT. The Species at Risk Committee is preparing status reports for the first four species to be assessed in 2012: the polar bear, Peary caribou, boreal woodland caribou and Hairy Braya.
Traditional knowledge continues to play an important role in ENR’s mandate. During the coming year, $255,000 will be spent on the Traditional Knowledge Implementation Plan. This will help build a strong and sustainable future through our strengthened relationships with Aboriginal governments and further our efforts in incorporating traditional knowledge into our decision-making.
As Members are aware, a large part of the department’s budget is spent on the prevention, detection, monitoring and suppression of wildfires in the Northwest Territories. During 2012-2013 the department has allocated an additional $510,000 towards forest fire management crews. Advanced wildland fire training and firefighter capacity testing will ensure all wildland firefighters are properly trained and able to monitor conditions and take action when necessary.
Caribou management continues to be of great importance to the department. The department is investing $1 million to implement the 2011-2015 Barren Ground Caribou Management Strategy. To ensure the continued sound management and conservation of barren ground caribou, ENR will be conducting population surveys of all the major herds in 2012. These results, along with other caribou studies, will help to inform our long- and short-term management actions in this area. I remain hopeful that the sacrifices made by NWT residents over the past few years will eventually allow us to remove the current restrictions. We must, however, proceed towards that goal with a substantial measure of caution.
Fire and caribou management funding aligns with our priority to work with our partners to ensure responsible stewardship through our land and resource management regime, as well as supporting the traditional economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide an overview of the department’s 2012-2013 Main Estimates. I look forward to discussing them in detail with you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Do you have witnesses you wish to bring into the House?
Yes, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Does committee agree to bring in the witnesses?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Sergeant-at-Arms, if you would please escort the witnesses to the Chamber.
Minister, if you could please introduce your witnesses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have with me Mr. Ernie Campbell, deputy minister of Environment and Natural Resources; and Ms. Nancy Magrum, the director of shared services with ENR and ITI, financial services. Thank you.
Thank you to the Minister. Committee, we are on page 13-7, department summary. We will defer until we have considered detail. We’ll move on to page 13-8, information item, infrastructure investment summary. Are there any questions on this page? I did forget general comments. Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Are there any general comments on the department? Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to maybe ask some questions or respond a little bit to the opening remarks of the Minister. This department has reduced its budget. I am concerned about that. As the Minister knows, and I see he’s referred to it as a 2.6 or $1.8 million reduction. The actual reduction from dollars spent last year was about a $9 million reduction or about 12 or 15 percent. I guess my first question to the Minister would be: Were those additional costs, the ephemeral costs that we don’t expect and what were they?
The Minister is continuing to develop the water programs and at increasing cost. I think this is a state-of-the-art water program in all the jurisdictions across Canada, and the Minister deserves kudos for this work. My one concern is that it seems to be at the cost of things like climate change. I’m sure the Minister knows that there’s probably no single bigger threat to our water qualities and quantities and ecological services, all the values that water has, than climate change itself, and given the science, we are not doing our part.
I’ve heard the Minister claim that it’s not going to happen at the federal level. Climate change, mitigation needs to be done at the subnational level, and so we’re not saying we’re inactive or inert on this issue, but I am saying that we need to review these priorities.
I’m happy to see the solar energy strategy being devised. It’s a long overdue one. The solar costs are declining at a rate of 4 percent per annum, and the technical capabilities are increasing. Along with that, I hope the Minister will take into consideration things like the standby charges and so on that the NWT Power Corporation, under his jurisdiction, has. The policies that they have that, in fact, go against the development of renewable energy and solar, in particular.
I’m happy to see a new Wildlife Act coming forward. We had expected it in the winter but maybe the Minister is going to bring it forward earlier as per his comments here. My question there would be when it does come forward, what funding has been identified to stakeholders who require some support as interveners or commenters to be able to comprehensively review this massive legal document.
I guess the last one I have, caribou obviously remain a priority of all residents of the Northwest Territories, or most residents. In many cases we’re talking about our food, we’re talking about some economic values and we’re certainly talking about ecological values.
So I appreciate the work the department does on caribou and perhaps I could just get confirmation on what the substantive herds are that the Minister refers to as major herds that will be surveyed in 2012. I’m sure it includes the Bathurst herd. I wonder if it includes the Ahiak or the Beverly and the western herds, Bluenose herds.
We have gone through quite a dry spell. In a significant part of the Northwest Territories there are warnings out this is a bug bear that the department has to face every year. It can be costly and unpredictable. So I’m wondering if the Minister has any crystal ball on what might be happening with, of course, fire season and how he intends to handle that unpredictability in a fiscal sense. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
