Debates of October 14, 2005 (day 10)

Rephrase it? Okay. Let me try that again.

---Laughter

What is the GNWT’s position on this? Does the GNWT believe that this could possibly hurt or kill the project? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I did it again.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I will ask the Minister to respond on what the GNWT’s position is on this. The honourable Premier, Mr. Handley.

Return To Question 122-15(4): Government Position On Future Of Pipeline

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly don’t feel like the Maytag repairman anymore. Mr. Speaker, our government’s position is that the pipeline will happen. It will take place. But the negotiations are proceeding. Every day, I am in contact with some of the parties, all of the parties, depending on what is happening, and monitoring what is going on. This is very tough negotiating. There are $7 billion plus just in the expenses, plus huge amounts of revenue if it goes ahead. It is a huge amount of revenue for us as a government, for the federal government, for the producers, for the aboriginal organizations and governments. So it is very tough negotiating. But our view is that this pipeline will go ahead. Any time people make demands that are put forward as ultimatums, that tends to threaten things. I don’t think it serves a really good purpose. We believe that this is good for the North and will happen. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. The time for oral questions has expired; however, I will allow the Member to have supplementary questions. Mr. McLeod.

Supplementary To Question 122-15(4): Government Position On Future Of Pipeline

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Premier for that. Let me try another one. I know the Premier has been working hard trying to get all parties together here to get this thing going. Is there anything more that this government can be doing? Are we a serious player in some of these negotiations? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 122-15(4): Government Position On Future Of Pipeline

Mr. Speaker, we are a very serious player in this project. It will make a tremendous difference to communities along the valley. I have travelled to many of the communities. I have seen the situation that people are living in where there is unemployment and poor housing and so on. This is an opportunity that we…

No roads.

No roads. We don’t want to let this one go by. Mr. Speaker, this project is too important for us to sit by. We are major players in it. Some things we are not directly involved in. For example, on the financial considerations that the industry is dealing with, the federal government is directly involved. But we are being kept informed all the time and we will watch that closely because, in the long run, we are the ones as northerners that will end up paying a large part of that bill. Yes, we are watching all the way along. We are a significant player here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Supplementary, Mr. McLeod.

Supplementary To Question 122-15(4): Government Position On Future Of Pipeline

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the Premier that this project is important to the valley. With all of these demands being made from all of the parties involved, is this holding up the talks with Ottawa on this resource revenue sharing? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 122-15(4): Government Position On Future Of Pipeline

Mr. Speaker, no, there isn’t a direct relationship between our negotiations on devolution and resource revenue sharing and the pipeline. But we do realize that if there is a pipeline, it means huge financial benefits that will generate to the North and to ourselves as a government. If there is no pipeline, then we have lost a great opportunity, in our view. But in terms of direct relationship, no. I am sure, though, as our negotiators, the federal negotiators and the aboriginal negotiators get to the table, then the information on the value of the pipeline is certainly on everybody’s mind. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to seek unanimous consent to return to item 5 on today’s Order Paper. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. Brian Dejardins, with the Northwest Territories Association of Communities, who is with us here today.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery. The honourable Member for Monfwi, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to express my personal thanks to Sarah Coey-Simpson who is here as a Page this week. She is going home tomorrow, so I would like to say thank you. Mahsi.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.

How much money, on a year-by-year basis, has been allocated for special needs funding for the last five years for the NWT as a whole?

What is the breakdown each DEA/DEC received for this funding for special needs over the same time period on a yearly basis?

What are the criteria set out to determine how students with special needs qualify for special needs support?

What is the process used to determine who among our student population have special needs and require additional support?

Please provide all ministerial directives issued in this regard.

What is the number of students who require special needs support in our school system at the current time?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs.

What departments are involved in the Emergency Measures Act?

Who in the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs takes the lead role?

How often are the emergency measures policy guidelines updated?

How many times does the staff meet with the communities?

How are communities categorized in the emergency measures?

Are there any territory-wide emergency measure action plans to deal with territory-wide issues?

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to report that the Standing Committee on Social Programs has reviewed Bill 7, Personal Directives Act, and we choose to report that Bill 7 is now ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with Section 21 of the Retiring Allowances Act and Section 11.1 of the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act, I hereby table the Pension Administration Report - Retiring Allowances Act and Supplementary Retiring Allowances Act as at March 31, 2005.

We have a number of items to be brought forward today. What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Menicoche.

Mr. Chairman, the committee wishes to consider Bill 8 and Bill 9.

Please repeat that, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee wishes to consider Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act, and Bill 9, Municipal Statutes Amendment Act.

Does committee agree?

Agreed.

At this time, can we take a short break?

Agreed.

---SHORT RECESS

Good afternoon and welcome back to Committee of the Whole. Right now we are going to review Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act. Would the Minister responsible introduce the bill please, Mr. Floyd Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to introduce Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act. The petroleum products division of the Department of Public Works and Services was established in 1972 to provide fuel sales dispensing and delivery services in those communities not serviced by the private sector. The petroleum products division currently provides these services in 15 communities across the Northwest Territories.

The petroleum products division administers the petroleum products revolving fund under the authority of the Revolving Funds Act and the Financial Administration Act. The revolving fund provides the resources to purchase and distribute the fuel consumed annually in the communities we serve. In accordance with the Revolving Funds Act, the petroleum products division is required to recover advances from the revolving fund through retail sales.

There is also a petroleum products stabilization fund that is intended to protect consumers from fluctuations in costs and minimize the need for frequent adjustments to retail fuel prices. Operational surpluses or losses at the end of each fiscal year are credited or charged respectively to their stabilization fund. Currently the maximum balance in the stabilization fund cannot exceed plus or minus $5 million at the end of any fiscal year. Should the balance at the end of any fiscal year be above the surplus of $5 million, the excess surplus is credited to the consolidated revenue fund. Deficit balances exceeding $5 million are charged to the Public Works and Services appropriation.

The maximum limit of the stabilization fund was established well before division of the Northwest Territories on April 1, 1999, when the petroleum products division served over 40 communities and had annual sales revenue of approximately $60 million.

Today, Mr. Chairman, only 15 communities are served with annual sales revenues of approximately $14 million. This is approximately an 80 percent reduction over pre-division levels. There is no longer a rationale for the stabilization fund to accommodate $5 million in profits or losses as the petroleum products division no longer has a customer base to service this level of debt without imposing undue hardship on consumers through drastic price increases.

Mr. Chairman, this fact was recognized in the 2002-03 fiscal year when the Legislative Assembly approved the write-off of $4.191 million deficit balance of the stabilization fund.

The current balance of the stabilization fund is a surplus of $472,000. The petroleum products division is projecting a loss of approximately $230,000 for the fiscal year 2005-06 which will be charged to the petroleum products stabilization fund resulting in a projected surplus of $242,000 as of March 31, 2006.

A new maximum limit of plus or minus $1 million will still fulfil the intent of the stabilization fund and more accurately reflect the maximum accumulated debt level that the petroleum products division can service without imposing drastic price increases on its customers. That concludes my opening remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister Roland. At this time I would like to ask Mrs. Groenewegen for opening comments on Bill 8. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development met on October 11, 2005, to review Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Revolving Funds Act. Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 8 to the Assembly as ready for Committee of the Whole. This concludes the committee's general comments on Bill 8. Individual committee members may have questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. At this time we would like to ask the Minister if he would like to bring in any witnesses.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Can the Sergeant-at-Arms please bring in the witnesses? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister Roland, can you introduce your staff, please? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joining me this afternoon from the Department of Justice is Mara Heder, and with me is the director of the petroleum products division from the Department of Public Works and Services, Mr. Mike Aumond. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. General comments on Bill 8. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak in favour of this amendment. I think the proposal to adjust the fund is prudent business management on the part of the FMBS. From the information provided, I think the new ceiling or floor of $1 million, given the scale and the size of accounts in the number of communities we serve, is a good piece of work. I am happy to see this and I will be voting for it.

In the midst of such a volatile petroleum pricing environment as we have right now, I would want to ask the Minister or his officials if there is any extra concern. There are some forecasts given here, Mr. Chairman, that at the end of the current fiscal year we will still have a bit of projected surplus of about $250 million. Is that forecast still a good one, considering the current volatility of prices? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the estimates we have given there are based on the refuelling that has been done recently, so we have had our final communities refuelled through the barging system, and this already incorporates the new prices we paid for the winter resupply that had occurred previously. We feel that we are fairly close with that number.

The reason we are projecting the loss in the stabilization fund is to offset some of the increases on home heating oil. We are dipping into that stabilization fund so that we don't have to bring the price up as far as we would if we did not have that fund there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Braden.