Okay. We will turn, please, in your document to page 2-2, Department of Human Resources. I will refer your attention, please, to page 2.2, which we will stand down for now. We will move on to the first department, which is on page 2-4, activity summary, Human Resources, strategy and policy, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $300,000.
Agreed.
Okay. Thank you. We turn now to the summary page, department summary, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $300,000 for the Department of Human Resources. Agreed?
Agreed.
Okay. Does the committee agree that consideration of this department is concluded? Ms. Bisaro.
I just wondered if we were going to have witnesses to answer our questions, if we have them.
In terms of process, I think the questions would be directed towards Minister Miltenberger. Members, the intent is to bring in witnesses for other departments, but for this department are we in agreement that we have concluded the Department of Human Resources?
Agreed.
Thank you. Now we move on to the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs. I would like to ask Minister Miltenberger if he would like to bring in witnesses to the witness table.
Madam Chair, what we were hoping to do is the same as last time; Minister McLeod would be there with his deputy.
Minister Miltenberger, would you like to bring witnesses to the witness table?
Yes, Madam Chair.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. I’ll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms, please, to escort the witnesses into the Chamber.
Minister Miltenberger, for the record, would you please introduce your witness?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have Mr. Williams, deputy minister of Municipal and Community Affairs.
Thank you. I would like to direct Members’ attention, please, to page 4-2, which we will stand down and we will move on to page 4-4, Municipal and Community Affairs, activity summary, regional operations, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $28.002 million. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome again here to the witness table. As I indicated in my opening comments or general comments, and I know that has been discussed in committee format, the demographics and the population changes that we’re seeing in the territory are shifting. As resources or work occurs, people move to those areas. We know the Sahtu is going to be greatly influenced by many oil projects here in the coming year and we see that the funding formula for communities is not changing with what we think is population change. This has also been spoken to, I believe, as well, with the NWT Association of Communities, which also agrees that this possibly is something that we should be looking at. So, Madam Chair, I think my opening comment or question is: Has population changed? Has demographic shifted? Has this caused changes in the funding formula for this upcoming year? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The funding that goes to communities is a base-plus formula. So as the base is tied to, everybody gets the same basic amount and then the rest is on a per capita basis. So as the new population numbers come through, they are factored in. I’ll ask Mr. Williams if he wants to speak any further about how often we adjust those population figures. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Williams.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We work closely with the Stats Bureau, looking at the populations across the Northwest Territories in all of our communities. It’s revisited on an annual basis, so we do take that into consideration. It is built into our current formula. We understand there will be, with the development in the Sahtu area, some impacts and some growth. So we’ll be monitoring this very closely in the upcoming years.
The formula, when it was implemented, I guess that factor is a primary factor for consideration in our budgetary figures. I just have to point out the capital plan or the capital amount hasn’t changed in the last five years. It continues to be at the value of $28 million. One of the things that we have seen changes in is in the need for O and M funding and that’s the big demand that we have in our community governments right now. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I appreciate the fact that the Stats Bureau plays a key role in this, but I guess further to that it looks like there’s a fixed amount of money which is involved. I’m assuming that that fixed amount of money is…(inaudible)…shared accordingly to formula funding changes. Now, has the percentage of formula, have they changed in the last year and are the forecasts factoring and the so-called stats differential? Can we get a bit of an idea of the breakdown?
Let’s pick the Sahtu area for example. Again, are we seeing those fundamentals being affected by funding formulas? It sounds like there are statistics being used, but can we get some reassurances that we’ve seen changes occurring in the last year and moving forward for the next couple of years? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There are two key points. The infrastructure money under the New Deal, it was a five-year arrangement and it’s currently up for review and discussion with the Association of Communities and the communities about its adequacy, and after this first five years, are there changes, do things have to be adjusted.
As we’ve demonstrated through the business planning process we’ve identified because of, if I can use the Sahtu as a very specific case, because of the pressures that are there with the increased exploration and pressures on infrastructure and demand that we’ve made some initial extra investments there to try to adjust for that, and if in fact the play there proves out for oil, then we recognize that there will be further work required and we are already in discussions with the region about that. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you. I do appreciate the Minister for clarification here. I’ll leave it at that, Madam Chair, and let other colleagues dial in. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is similar to that along those same lines as the funding arrangement for this capital infrastructure. Indications from the previous numbers… Are there no changes in those numbers? The $28 million has been fixed in for a few years, and is there any indication from the department that that will change at all in the next couple of years? It seems difficult to me, the fact that these numbers are staying steady, but yet the communities and municipalities are all seeing different pressures in CPI, other expenditures where we’re not matching, we’re not keeping up to any kind of index at all. So I’d like to ask that of the department.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Madam Chair. As I’ve indicated, that particular program and arrangement is up for review and that type of discussion will be taking place with communities and the Association of Communities.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger.
Madam Chair, may I also ask the Minister of MACA to elaborate further on that particular point, please?
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The numbers have been staying pretty consistent for the last number of years. A review had been completed. Part of the review was having some dialogue with the NWTAC and LGANT, Local Government Administrators of the Northwest Territories. They’re more concerned with the O and M funding and their big concern was the O and M funding. So we’re trying to address that. But as far as the infrastructure funding, they didn’t have too much concern with the amount of money that’s been going in there. I mean, understanding that there’s been a huge investment in infrastructure in the last number of years and our O and M funding needs to catch up. So that was their big concern as far as the infrastructure money goes. They were comfortable with that figure for now. Again, it’s one that was reviewed we have out there.
Mr. Dolynny raised a point about going to base-plus formula, and with population moving around, I think we’re going to have to probably dig into this a little further and see. If one community has a huge migration of population and they move to another community, then we’re going to have to look at that because we do fund on a base-plus.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Bouchard.
…(inaudible)…I understand that the infrastructure money and the O and M money are closely linked in the fact of demand and stuff. One of the questions I have is the formula, as far as my understanding, is it’s a base-plus and base given to each community plus their per capita plus some other factors. I understand that the department consults with the Association of Municipalities; however, that association has two sides. It has small communities and the larger centres. Some issues they separate the discussion; some issues they continue discussion together. They’re an organization that works together, so it’s very difficult for one group to say we think the base is too high for smaller centres and the smaller centres will say the opposite. They’ll say it’s more difficult to do infrastructure in larger centres. I’m just wondering in the review what the department is doing to alleviate some of those concerns from those two fundamental ideologies, I guess.
As I said before, part of the discussion we have is with LGANT. I mean, they represent – or NWT Association of Communities – all 33 communities. All 33 communities will normally meet in a room and they’re just one big organization. Their big concern was the O and M funding, not so much that we have to be fair and go to a base-plus.
One of the arguments I continue to have with Canada when we meet with them is as the Northwest Territories, if you fund us on a per capita basis, being such a small jurisdiction we’re immediately behind the eight ball. We try to treat all our communities the same by giving them the same base and then the per capita will make up. Some of the larger communities will obviously get more money because of the population.
Again, LGANT and NWTAC were quite comfortable with the numbers and asked us if we were going to look more at the O and M funding to catch up with the huge investment in infrastructure we’ve had with some of the money we got from Canada over the last few years. That’s what we continue to do.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Bouchard. Next on the list I have Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of MACA have talked about the New Deal. I just want to get a little bit less confused. The Minister of Finance said it’s under review and the Minister of MACA said they had the review. Can I get some clarification? Is the New Deal under review, done, analyzed, or is it still under review? …(inaudible)…
Sorry. Mr. Yakeleya I guess was still speaking, so we’ll go back to Mr. Yakeleya.
Just to ask the Minister, this New Deal, I mean, on the review, is it a review for under ourselves as the government, or is it something that we’re going to use to make some arguments to the federal government? I understand from the Finance Minister that this is a process that’s under review, and then I’m hearing from the Minister of MACA that the review is done. I just need some clarification, that’s all.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I take responsibility for that. I should have passed the information on to the Finance Minister. The New Deal review was completed and it’s a review that was taken on by Municipal and Community Affairs to assess how well these programs have been working in the community and some of the potential changes that might come about. The review of the New Deal is completed and was done by MACA.
Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Minister. I appreciate that. Now with the emphasis maybe being looked at with the operations and maintenance funding, that is a real concern. I’m glad that the issue’s been picked up on. I’ve seen and talked to many of the Sahtu communities and that seems to be an issue, now that these infrastructure assets are being transferred to the community. One of the things that they lack any type of support right off the bat is that the O and M is killing them, killing their budget. Talk to Tulita, to Colville Lake, Deline, even Norman Wells. Thank you, Mr. Dolynny, for raising the issue of the impacts of the possible potential of the Sahtu shale oil play and how that could explode into an increase into their operations and maintenance in the community of Norman Wells and even Tulita. Now we have Good Hope who has high interest from Shell Canada to put some exploration projects in that community with the amount of activity happening in the Sahtu.
Now I want to ask, the Minister of Finance talked about the monitoring of the upcoming years but we’re already starting to see some of the activity increase in the winter months in Norman Wells and Tulita on the oil and gas exploration side of it. Has MACA been able to respond to even some of the short increase of the impacts that will happen either on the roads, dumps, contaminated waste sites, or any other area that the communities could be coming to this government saying this is causing an impact on our budget, our infrastructure is not enough and we need to look at this again? Do we have some support within this winter or the next winter seasons to look at some of these types of supports that we’re giving them?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We will work closely with the communities. We have our regional folks out there that will work closely with the communities. We do know that there could be a potential impact on the community of Norman Wells. They’re funded based on what they have right now. In the future when the community expands – and I still think it will – then we would have to review the whole funding as far as Norman Wells goes. If their population goes up, then adjustments will have to be made as to some of their funding. As far as the impact on some of their infrastructure, I mean, that’s a decision that the community would make and we would be there to support the community.
We’re well aware of some of the challenges that the community might be facing with the exploration and all the work that’s going to be going on there. We monitor that very closely.
Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. I’d like to also ask if, once the review has been sort of put together by your department and packaged up, the review will be shared with the Ministers within the sitting of this House here that we could see the review of the report that’s been completed.
I’ll have discussion with the officials and when we’re able to, we’ll be more than happy to sit down with committee and share some of the information, all of the information, not some of it, that we have gathered with committee and get some feedback from committee as to how we can best move forward.
