We’ve heard the argument on a number of occasions about Yellowknife being a magnet community. We do have a lot of folks from outside come into Yellowknife. Yellowknife is very fortunate. They have some very good groups here in town that work on these situations. As far as their transitional housing goes, I think they’re in better shape than all of the 32 communities across the Northwest Territories. We just made a sizable contribution to Betty House and we do help with Rockhill with an in-kind donation, plus some money to help with utilities and that. As far as the rest of the Northwest Territories goes, Yellowknife is in very good shape. It could be improved all across the Northwest Territories, not only the capital. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am really glad the Minister recognizes that there’s room for improvement. I have to say to the Minister that he may consider Yellowknife to be in good shape, but to have 150 or more people on a waiting list for transition housing is not good shape, in my mind.
Members are often asking Ministers to visit their community and talk to people. I’d like to know from the Minister if he’d be willing to sit down with our local authorities, non-government organizations, who do provide transition housing, and talk to them and work with them for solutions. Thank you.
I would be glad to visit the Member’s constituency and talk to some of the NGOs there, as I would extend that invitation to all Members here, because it helps us as a corporation to do our job better with some planning, so we can hear from folks out in the communities who have to deal with some of the situations they find themselves in. I will commit to the Member, if we can line up a meeting, I’d be happy to attend. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
I’d like to follow up on my Member’s statement earlier today and follow up with the Minister responsible for climate change. I assume that would be the Minister of Environment.
According to a number of statements made by the Premier and the Finance Minister the last couple of days, we have a strong commitment in addressing greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. Using only a partial look at the Department of Transportation costs, they are obviously significant. Yet, commitments to reducing emissions are that we are going to allow a 66 percent increase. Greenhouse gas intensive development activities are beginning to climb once again. We know about the oil play in the Sahtu and so on, despite recent gains due to the recession.
In the face of this, I’d like to ask is the Minister prepared to set more ambitious targets for all of the NWT and GNWT, for that matter, and the means to actually lead the charge in reducing climate change now.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a complex issue, as the Members know. Late in the last government, we passed a revised and revamped Greenhouse Gas Strategy that set new targets. There’s built-in review periods built into that strategy that we will look at as we go forward. We also know, for example, that one of the planned projects has been deferred further, which is going to contribute to greenhouse gases, which is the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline. So while it’s still a critical project, it’s not imminent on the horizon.
At the same time as we talk about standards, we have to look at the tens of millions of dollars we’re investing at limiting our emissions. Things like the Biomass Strategy, the work we’ve done on solar, the expansion of hydro, the building standards, the Capital Asset Retrofit Program with the government, the rebate programs, the money we’ve invested to help people make their houses energy efficient and putting in more energy-efficient appliances.
So there are two things to do here. We can set standards and then we can actually get on the ground and do the right things, which is where the most immediate benefit is. We are already paying the highest prices for energy in the country.
When you look at companies like Diavik, they are investing about $33 million in wind energy that’s going to repay itself in five years. They deserve full commendation for that commitment. It’s those types of things that we are doing in addition for the setting of standards with the renewal of the Greenhouse Gas Strategy late in the 16th Assembly. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister for those remarks. The Minister certainly is dead on there. We are doing lots of things. I think we are one of the most progressive jurisdictions.
Of course, we also have some of the greatest costs. I appreciate the Department of Transportation’s frankness in responding to some of my questions about what those costs are, recognizing that those are only partial costs if they are conservative, admittedly conservative costs, that they ignore the costs to the public and so on and that those costs are accelerating year to year.
I want to talk a little bit about the context. This was only one department, $6.5 million. Clearly, it’s worth comparing the net fiscal benefits of devolution, for example, estimated recently by the Premier to be $60 million. So I anticipate that with these sorts of information, we are going to erode all of those fiscal benefits through the impacts of climate change. That’s an important context to have.
The Minister of Environment brings climate change concerns to the table. Can he assure us that the obvious need for greenhouse gas reductions will be a key consideration in the environmental reviews that we have before us, for example, for the Inuvik-Tuk highway and so on? Mahsi.
It’s not a future tense, but that issue has been driving us, as the Member said. We are dealing with it; we are adapting to this on an ongoing basis. There are things happening that are the new reality. There is endangered species, there are the fire seasons that are increasing in addition to all the things that Transportation has talked about. That reality is there and we are making and are committed to managing our greenhouse gas emissions.
We have to keep in mind that we live in a cold climate. We are carbon-intensive users and we do have some of the highest prices for energy right now and we have to manage all that. I think we’re doing that and the demonstration of the practical application of our commitment, I think, is where the rubber hits the road, if I may use that term, in all the things I listed in my previous answer. Thank you.
Thanks for the remarks from the Minister, although I would say he’s clearly wrong. We are not managing emissions of anybody but ourselves, the GNWT, and yet we have the authority to do that. That’s exactly the point I am talking about.
The Minister did outline the many costs; for example, residents who experience the startling pace of land slides, erosion into streams affecting fish populations, contaminant loads, damages to homes, shorelines moving communities such as your own, Mr. Speaker, and so on. We need to know what we’re dealing with here to provide this context.
Will the Minister collect across-government data needed, and direct and indirect financial costs of climate change across our government operations, and to estimate the costs inflicted on our public and report his conclusions to the House? Mahsi.
I would suggest that the budget that we bring before the House and its component pieces with the various departments and the $1.5 billion we do have captures what money we have available to deal with the pressures. We have identified, for example, in terms of infrastructure, we have about a $3 billion infrastructure debt that we build up for various reasons. A lot of that is going to be to deal with some of the issues that are tied directly to climate change.
There’s a clear line relationship. We have $1.5 billion in the government to manage. We know that there are things that we could easily spend that money on and more, just on infrastructure, let alone all the program needs. I think that is the litmus test. That is where you capture the money.
We could say and we could build or pull together projections and say we need $10 billion if we wanted to put solar in every community and we want to expand all the hydro, we wanted to do all the other work that needs to be done in Inuvik with the gas, and Norman Wells with their situation. Is that attributable to climate change and is that a place where we want to spend all of our time and energy arguing over that, or do we want to actually stay focused on the ground in terms of limiting our emissions and the practical application of all the programs we’ve put in place over the last number of years? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t hear a response to my question for a commitment to estimate the costs to government and the public. I’d still like that commitment. We clearly need to recognize our situation.
I’d like to know, in recognizing that the federal government has abandoned Kyoto and so on, can the Minister tell us what efforts he is making in partnership with other provincial, territorial and Aboriginal governments to push forward combined subnational efforts and I’d also like that commitment. Mahsi.
Thank you. I recently returned from a meeting of the Environment Ministers and over supper we were talking about whatever success Canada has in terms of managing their emissions. My observation, which was agreed to by all the folks around the table, was that the federal government in fact has benefitted from the work of the subnational provinces, territories, states, and the Northwest Territories is a perfect example.
We’ve spent tens of millions of dollars; we’re doing ground-breaking work on things related to biomass, alternative fuels like biomass, its application across the land, the use of our own existing energy sources like hydro for things like electricity and for power and for heat, what we want to do with helping the private sector on wind. We are going to be taking care of our own business and that’s where it has to be done.
That was recognized in Copenhagen, as well, that the work that’s going to be done on climate change, greenhouse gas emission control, it’s going to be done at that level, because the national governments cannot get organized enough to in fact make the decisions necessary. So we are committed to that, and the Member has been in this Assembly long enough to see all the work that we’ve done and the fruits of those labours. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to have to talk about Highway No. 7 in my question. I notice that the Department of ITI just recently released preliminary tourism reports about how well the parks have done this year. I was wondering if the Minister of Transportation has some preliminary numbers for tourists that travelled down Highway No. 7 and toward the Blackstone Park. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The Minister of Transportation, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t have the exact figures with me, but I’d be more than happy to provide those to the Member when I do get them. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I just wanted to make the point that it was exceptionally dry this year and the highway was in good shape. I’m pretty sure that the tourism numbers are up on Highway No. 7. I just want to make the point that with continued effort and working on Highway No. 7 with reconstruction, we can continue to have a good highway system with Highway No. 7.
I’d like to ask the Minister if he can give me those tourism numbers as well as a commitment about some kind of strategy to advise tourists about Highway No. 7. Thank you.
I thank the Member for bringing up Highway No. 7 again today and I also thank him for earlier this summer the trip we had between Liard and Simpson on Highway No. 7. Certainly, it was a dry year and all indications are that travel on that road by tourists was up. Again, I’ve committed to get the member some figures on the numbers and I will do that.
But certainly, we have to ensure that there’s a long-term plan for Highway No. 7 and I believe that there is. We need to look at some capital dollars going forward for the maintenance and rehabilitation of that road and I’ve mentioned it before in the House. It’s in the magnitude of $250 million. That is what would be required to totally rehabilitate the road. Obviously, we don’t have $250 million today, but what we can do is come up with a plan to maintain and rehabilitate what we can over the next 10 years or so and we plan on doing that. Thank you.
Thank you very much. The Minister spoke about a long-term strategy. I’d certainly like to see any of that preliminary work that he has, if he has any. Thank you.
Again, I will provide the detail to the Member, but we also recently signed an MOU with Canadian Zinc and the Prairie Creek Mine on how industry and the government can work together on improvements to Highway No. 7 and the Nahanni access road, and that’s certainly something we also look forward to completing as well. I think that’s an important step forward, too, as we realize some resource development and some jobs and some opportunities in the Deh Cho and the Nahendeh riding. So we’ve got some things in front of that that look very, very good and we intend to keep moving forward with Highway No. 7, its maintenance, its rehabilitation and the future of that road. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think part of the strategy, of course, is to include Highway No. 7 in the Tourism Strategy, if the Minister can also work toward that. Mahsi.
It is there, it has been there in the past with the Deh Cho Connection, the Deh Cho Trail. Certainly, it is part of our highway system here in the Northwest Territories. We have some beautiful parks located on there and some beautiful communities as well. So, certainly, that is part of the Tourism Strategy as we move forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just going to follow up to my Member’s statement that I made earlier today in terms of treatment centres. I had mentioned all the infrastructure and services that are in the capital of Yellowknife here, and all of those groups do a lot of really good work for the Northwest Territories and people that do come into Yellowknife. My question for the Minister is for the Minister of Health today.
Can the Minister provide me with a list of any infrastructure, if any at all, in the 32 other communities outside of Yellowknife that do provide treatment for addictions? Can he provide me with that infrastructure? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. The Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I would be able to provide that information for the Member. Thank you.
Yes, specifically, can the Minister let this government know of any other programs, specific programs outside of Yellowknife that are being offered in any of the other communities, the regional centres and the small communities, specific programs that he can let us know today in the House that are going on in the 32 communities outside of Yellowknife that deal with addictions and treatment? Thank you.
We have a treatment facility on the Hay River Reserve, Nats’ejee K’eh. The department spends about $2 million annually on that facility to run it. Including Yellowknife, there is a counselling program, a community counselling program where we have $6 million. Then we have the on-the-land programs, which their allocation is approximately $25,000 per community. So off the top of my head, those are the programs that are available today. There is no other infrastructure outside of Nats’ejee K’eh that’s available for residential treatment. Thank you.
Under our priorities for the 17th Legislative Assembly, one of our priorities is to enhance addiction treatment programs using existing infrastructure. Can the Minister inform us if his department has gone out throughout the Northwest Territories and identified any existing infrastructure that can be used for treatment programs throughout the Northwest Territories outside of Nats’ejee K’eh and any new infrastructure that he’s recognized.
The department has not identified specific infrastructure that could be used for residential treatment; however, it is one of the mandates of the Minister’s Forum on Addictions to look at as they travel from community to community having meetings with the communities. One of their other mandates is to determine what type of treatment would be required in which location, and once they’ve made that recommendation to the department, the department will look at trying to match the infrastructure that exists in those locations.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final supplementary, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I heard is there is this group that’s going throughout the Northwest Territories and their mandate is to identify infrastructures. So if they’ve already travelled to some of the communities, I don’t see why we wouldn’t have some infrastructure on the list already.
In terms of the priorities that we do have, enhancing addictions treatment programs using existing infrastructure, when can we start to see this taking place, as we’ve already completed one full year of this Assembly? When can we start to see this taking place and a timeline in getting this addressed, as it is a big priority in the Northwest Territories and our big cost-driver in Health and Social Services?
As the Member is aware, we essentially started the new budget three months into this fiscal year. Within that budget is where we are funding this forum. The forum has not travelled yet. Their first function will be to come together in one central location. From then on they will travel to two or possibly as many as four communities in each region, the four different forums, and they will come back together with their recommendations. Once they come with their recommendations, we will be matching what is needed. In addition to that, we are reviewing the one residential treatment centre that we do have for its effectiveness and how well it fits into what is needed as far as residential treatment goes.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In follow-up to the most recent set of questions here, in three years’ time a new hospital will go on stream in Hay River. The old hospital is being replaced. For different types of facilities there are all different kinds of building codes and building requirements. We know secure facilities have a certain code, hospital facilities have a certain building code they have to adhere to, and they cost different amounts of money. We will be using the Hay River hospital up until the day that we move everything over to the new hospital.
The day after, I find it interesting if this government would consider that hospital ready for the wrecking ball. We are desperate for infrastructure in this territory for different things. I’d like to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services if he would begin a process now to begin to think about the Hay River hospital, which has just received the top accreditation you can receive for a hospital, would he begin some process of assessing that hospital to see if that facility would be suitable as a residential treatment or treatment centre of any kind in the future.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Beaulieu.
When you replace a facility like a hospital, one of the main reasons for replacing a facility is not for what you see physically, it’s for how the building functions and how the building operates. The guts of the building are what get outdated and have to change. That in the H.H. Williams Hospital has gone beyond its date of good economic use. That is one factor. However, we would be prepared to take a look at using portions of that building if we thought that a treatment facility located in Hay River was the best value for our money.
The current Hay River hospital was built in two stages. There’s a much older wing and then there is a much newer part, which was very modern and cutting edge in its time when I think we cut the ribbon in 1975. I would like us to examine all possibilities for how we as a government could not retire that infrastructure but somehow re-profile it and put it and keep it in service for something. I would like to ask the Minister if he could confirm that – I know what he’s saying about the mechanical and all that – that the code for construction or utilization for a hospital would be different than it would be for a treatment centre.
Yes, the codes are much different. In a hospital we have to have different types of air exchanges. For example, I find out that if you have an operating room, you have to exchange air 20 times an hour. So you don’t need to have that type of air exchange in a treatment facility, of course. So, much different.
Would it be the Department of Health and Social Services that would, perhaps, review options for putting this facility into service in some capacity, or would it be the Department of Public Works and Services who acts as a central agency for the different client departments? Would it be the work of PWS to begin to do this assessment or would it be the work of Health and Social Services?
I understand that in order to continue to use a facility that may have reached the end of its life, we would have to coordinate that with a technical department like Public Works and Services so that if there are upgrades necessary, we need to determine the costs of continuing to use the facility regardless of what it would be used for. We would have to do some sort of technical evaluation to determine whether or not we would be better off just to build something new.
If I were the Minister of Health and Social Services and I were managing a department in the Northwest Territories that did not have a single youth treatment for drug and alcohol addiction bed available, I would be all over the Hay River hospital idea. I would like to ask the Minister if he would commit today to at least examine that possibility of re-profiling what will be the former Hay River hospital in three years’ time as a youth treatment centre.
