Thank you, Minister McLeod. We’ll go to Mr. Krutko, first on my list.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question to the Minister is in the area of a study that was done a number of years ago by the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs with regard to dust control alternatives. A cost-benefit analysis was done in 2005 by the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs. Back then, during the 14th Assembly, one of the big issues for the small communities was dealing with the area of dust control. Today we still have that same problem in our communities, especially when we talk about the health of our communities and the well-being of people in those communities.
I know the department has requested that the Department of Transportation, working along with the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, reinstates such a program or initiative. So I would just like to ask the Minister or the deputy where we are when we find ways to deal with the dust problems we are having in our communities, especially the health of our communities and the problems they are seeing with dust. There have been studies done in Europe and other countries that definitely show a direct correlation between ailments like lung disease and dust in those particular communities. I think that’s something we have to be aware of in the Northwest Territories. So I’d like to ask the Minister if his department has talked with the Department of Transportation or is working with the Department of Transportation and the local municipal authorities to deal with dust control.
Maybe just wrapping up, this program that went into place during the 14th Assembly, there were nine communities identified. A majority of those communities have had some means of chipseal or were using different dust suppressants in the communities. But the communities that were chipsealed back then, most of them are at the sixth or seventh year of those streets being chipsealed. It has served its life. Now basically they have to either redo the streets or replace the chipseal with something else. So I would like to ask the Minister if the department has looked at coming up with a solution to this problem by working with the communities to deal with it.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, this is one we continue to hear about, is dust control. As we’ve heard from the Minister of Transportation earlier today, there is opportunity for communities to piggyback on work that’s being done on highways close to their communities. That means that they can get a better deal trying to access dust control. Chipsealing, more specifically, is one of the cheaper routes to go. There is an opportunity there for them. As far as MACA instituting the program, I’ve said on a number of occasions that communities now have it within their authority to have that as a priority to put that into their business plan. We’ve seen in some cases where communities are starting to identify dust control and putting it into their capital plan.
I think the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs and Department of Transportation have a lot to offer in technical support and having the capacity in their different organizations to assist communities. Communities don’t have engineers. Communities don’t have the technical staff on hand. I think that’s where the departments can play a very important role in this. I’d just like to ask the Minister to find a way to assist with the human resources aspect of the engineering people who deal with the technical side of laying chipseal or dealing with the area of dust control for our communities.
That’s one thing MACA sees their role as now, is to provide advice and expertise to the community or work with them to define the appropriate people to do the jobs. We see where our role is at now. I’ll actually have Mr. Aumond expand a little further on that.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have had some discussions with my colleague in Transportation and one of the things we discussed was an opportunity whereby we might use the quarterly granular forecast that we sent out to communities and then the Department of Transportation would, at the appropriate time, indicate in those quarterly reports to communities what their plans are for chipsealing so that communities can also plan to take advantage of them being in the location nearest them. Then MACA, of course, would also work with the community governments to help make that happen.
Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Mr. Krutko.
Again, in closing, this is more than just a dust problem; it’s a quality of life issue for our communities. I think that the communities that have had an opportunity to see the chipseal laid in our communities have seen the improvement in the quality of life in those communities. It also deals with the area of cleanliness and the ability for people to walk up and down the streets without having to worry about mud, dust, and being covered in those types of materials due to road traffic. I’d just like to ask the Minister that we don’t go back to the drawing board.
Like I said earlier, there was a study done in 2005 by EBA Engineering on behalf of the Department of Transportation. I think that’s where we should start. We should move forward and work with the respective departments of Transportation and MACA and the communities. Let’s move on this.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll commit to the Member that we’ll see about finding some of the old reports and dusting them off and seeing if there’s information in there that we could possibly use to assist communities in identifying dust control. I see I’ve got a copy coming already.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Menicoche. Just a reminder that we’re on page 4-4.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Municipal and Community Affairs has a lot of... Because I have the riding with the most communities, I often hear lots of concerns, especially during my last visit to the communities. They just revolve around the New Deal. The concern is that they’ve been operating for about three or four years now and they’re not really convinced that there’s enough O and M funding in there for them to run their communities. The biggest one for me is I hear consistently about the cost of street lighting. I’m not sure if it’s an arrangement with NTPC or not, but there is proof out there now that the amount of money that’s actually funded for O and M for street lighting does not actually keep up with the actual costs. I’ve raised it during committee about when the New Deal will be assessed and re-evaluated. I think the Minister said it would be at the 10-year mark. I really think that we need an evaluation or mid-term evaluation soon to look at the O and M costs that the smaller communities’ concerns are realized or met. Perhaps someone from the department can do that.
The communities with the most concerns are communities like Wrigley, where they are currently in a co-management process. The community of Jean Marie River raised that with me, Nahanni Butte, and Trout Lake, of the smaller communities. Because of these realities, they really feel that they’re struggling to make their O and M needs met. In fact, they’re frustrated. Jean Marie River even said, take the deal back; only because they’re struggling with that. It may be a capacity issue. Has this been explained to them enough?
In some of my communities the reality, too, is that they’ve been changing management every six months. That’s not helpful at all. I believe MACA can be helpful, as well, in guiding the communities and letting them know how to best manage their communities. That’s why I feel that just because they’re changing management doesn’t mean that they have to run into financial troubles. I don’t know if all communities are using the same financial package for each community, but I believe we have to assist them more, because they are asking for assistance.
In terms of O and M and the maintenance of those communities and their assets, maybe the Minister can detail for me again what kind of, it will probably be complicated, but what is the basic formula, how was it derived. Did they use one year’s data, three years’ data, five years’ data? It sure doesn’t appear to be meeting the needs of the communities right now.
The last thing we want to do is have our communities in trouble. My communities are feeling stretched with the amount of resources that are transferred to them and they really don’t feel that it’s enough. Maybe the Minister can detail for me how the formula was reached, what kind of historical methods were used, what’s currently in place to assist communities that are feeling in trouble, and how do we best manage that. They continue to raise with me, on a monthly basis, that the street lighting costs are exorbitant.
Did the government have a different deal with the NWT Power Corporation than the communities have right now? A community like Wrigley, it’s said that I think in the line items it’s --I’m just rounding up figures here -- in round terms I think it was, like, $15,000 a month for power, but they’re actually paying $23,000 a month for the power to supply street lighting. There seems to be a big aberration there.
Of course, that’s something in the details that when the community signed on the New Deal they can’t really see until they start experiencing it for themselves in a couple years’ worth of data. That’s a huge cost. They’re managing it. They did run into financial difficulties. They are in co-management at the community of Wrigley. They will probably be out of it in about eight months. However, just because they’re able to see things on a monthly basis, this is what they see.
For me it’s about, okay, if this is the reality, then let’s re-evaluate the New Deal as soon as we can or else re-evaluate, especially in the community of Wrigley, how they’re paying the power costs. They may even be thinking, okay, at $23,000 a month, that’s almost running the whole O and M for the NTPC for that month in the community of Wrigley. Is the payment out of line? It really has to be looked at and I urge the Minister to do what they can, not only for the community of Wrigley but all the smaller communities that are struggling to make ends meet with the O and M payments. There has to be an assessment done and I really feel it should be done sooner than later.
Just with that, if the Minister can comment on those questions I have and how we can best manage this situation.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MACA will do what it can to work with the communities to assist them with some of the capacity challenges that they face working with LGANT and NWT Association of Communities. We’ve had the human resource plan that’s out there and it seems to be working well. We have people working with the smaller communities.
As far as the Member’s particular question goes, the actual formula for O and M, I’d be able to provide the details. The Member is right; it is quite complicated. It takes a lot of things into consideration. I have no problem providing the information to committee as to how some of the numbers were reached.
I could tell the Member, though, that as far as him wanting us to have a look at the different things, it is our intent in 2011-2012 to do an overall review of the New Deal. It’s been five years since it’s been in. We want to look at the capital funding allocation formula, how we reached that, and we also want to look at the O and M part of it. I can assure Members that this is something that the work will begin on very soon.
The Minister said soon. Does that mean he’ll begin some work during the winter months evaluating those communities? It doesn’t have to be a big thing. I think if they evaluate one community, pick one like Wrigley or any one of my communities in my riding and the concerns are going to be the same there. There doesn’t have to be a big study. They can wait and do their five-year evaluation. However, I think that the needs of a community like Wrigley have to really be examined and evaluated, because they are experiencing higher costs than the O and M that’s being provided in the New Deal. There has to be a reason for it, or perhaps it’s consistent. Perhaps there’s a root cause. That’s something I believe that work should begin immediately. I’d like to ask the Minister to consider that and put forward some kind of plan for this coming winter.
We’ll have all the work completed by the end of 2011-2012 as far as all the evaluations go. We will continue to work with and monitor the communities. Some of the communities in the Member’s riding were band communities, so they’re fairly new at this. Some of these just became incorporated. The regional office has offered to work with the communities that have just come on, do another information session with them, and basically just give them more training as to what to expect and what their roles are. As far as the overall evaluation, that will be completed by the end of 2011-2012.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just a few points. Some of my points are very similar to my colleague Mr. Menicoche. I have concerns with the street lighting as well. I’m not 100 percent sure if that’s now a community responsibility or a responsibly for the Power Corp. I’m still not 100 percent clear on that. I guess I’d ask the Minister if they could just go back and evaluate the whole area of poles and lights and so on, but the bottom line is to light up some portions of the communities that are in the dark in the wintertime. It is a little hazardous, no doubt about it, when you’re walking around in the dark and there are lots of fast moving snowmobiles and so on out there and four-wheelers. So it’s a concern. Some of the elders that are out exercising and walking have expressed the concern that they are not comfortable in walking on some streets that are completely in the dark. I’m not saying that this is the responsibility of this department necessarily, but I think this department would be a good place for us to start, and if it involves the corporation, that’s kind of outside of our mandates in here and the community, then this department could maybe spearhead something that eventually, at the end of the day, puts some streetlights up in the communities.
The other area of concern, which again I brought up before, is that I realize that the New Deal is going to be evaluated in another year or so, but I think that certainly consideration should be given to annual increases to the capital. It’s not real common practice to sign an agreement that’s static for five years. It basically says here essentially signing to erode your own budget each year by at least the inflation rate. It’s something that I think that Municipal and Community Affairs, when they’re discussing the evaluation and then what’s going to happen in the next five years, if there’s another five-year deal signed, actually that’s something that certainly should be taken into consideration and something that MACA should be working on with the communities.
Then I have an actual question on the amount of money in the infrastructure contribution to hamlets versus a settlement when the only thing that changes is the name moving from settlement status to hamlet status but it’s the same community. That has occurred in Tu Nedhe twice this year. I think when the municipalities signed on to get hamlet status and the other one incorporated as a hamlet status, there was a thought that there would be more money all the way around, and I think there is, but I’d like to actually know what the formula is. Like, how do they determine it and what the actual increase would be.
My last comment is that when we evaluate after five years we should drop the name “new.” Just call it “The Deal,” because it’s been five years, it’s not new anymore. But that’s it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’ll change the name from New Deal to Good Deal.
But going back to the streetlights, it’s the same thing as I responded to Mr. Menicoche. I mean, there are opportunities where the community can work with the Power Corp, but I take the Member’s point. Maybe we need to sit down with all parties that are affected by this, because it’s a whole ownership issue and that’s something that I think we need to clarify. So I would be willing to commit to the Member that I’ll try to get all the information clarified for him.
When you talk about settlement to hamlet, and even the Member had indicated that there is more money, and he’s absolutely correct. When you go from a settlement to a hamlet, the amount of money you get increases. I’m talking about the increases to the capital budget. I mean, with the overall territorial government capital budget coming down, it’s getting to be awfully difficult, but communities now have received a lot more than they’ve ever received before. I think it’s almost $12 million annually more than they used to receive before the New Deal. It’s been one that’s worked out well for the communities.
We’re really encouraged by the communities, the projects that they’re doing. If they need a project a year or two down the road, they’re saving up their money, so there are opportunities for that. It is one that’s actually still fairly new, but I think the communities welcome “The Deal,” and once they get all the capacity challenges faced and taken care of, I think this is one that we’re going to see a lot of positive results come out of. There will still continue to be challenges, but MACA will do what it can within the department to assist the communities that continue to have challenges. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a general question in regard to the infrastructure funding for communities. I think it’s well known, I don’t think it’s anything new to the Minister, that communities suffer an infrastructure deficit. Every community in the NWT, every community across Canada is suffering from a lack of infrastructure or aging infrastructure or infrastructure that needs upgrading and/or renovations. It’s my understanding that the amounts of infrastructure contributions to communities have been the same amount for about five years. There hasn’t been any increase for quite some time. It’s also my understanding that at this time, or maybe soon to be happening, that there may or may not be a review of the infrastructure contribution formula, that formula that MACA uses to determine how much money each community gets.
When I asked the question or made some comments at the start of this capital budget, I was advised that there is a review perhaps happening biannually. I’d like to ask the Minister or the deputy minister, when will the current infrastructure contribution formula for communities be reviewed to see whether or not it’s still applicable to today’s economics and the numbers of infrastructure buildings that communities have. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. That’s similar to a question that was asked earlier today. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There was a commitment to review the overall New Deal after five years. Budget year 2011-12 will be the fifth year, and in the fiscal year 2011-12 all aspects of the New Deal will be reviewed. Thank you.
Thank you to the Minister. My apologies. I was listening but I obviously didn’t listen very well. I didn’t hear that question earlier.
Five years seems like an awful long time, though. With communities taking over government buildings which used to be handled and maintained by GNWT and they’re now taking them over, and it’s happening more and more as communities get more used to having the autonomy and the responsibly and the control over their own assets, it’s something which I think the department ought to consider, whether or not five years to review is too long a time. I would think, particularly for infrastructure, there ought to be a review of the formula in a much shorter period of time than five years.
I appreciate that the Minister says we’re going to get a review in 2011-12, but that means there won’t be any change probably until the next budget. That’s probably too long away and I would encourage the department to start the review in this budget year so that we can get some kind of an increase. It may have to be a supp so we can get some kind of an increase in the fiscal year 2011-12 within that actual year. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Five years was the initial program. The initial review was going to come five years after that. I mean, who knows? It may be something that could be done, as the Member says, biannually. Five years, actually, was one that was agreed to in concert with the NWT Association of Communities. They felt that was a fair length of time, because there was a lot of responsibility devolved to the communities and thought five years would be a good indication of how this was working and doing a review and see where we need to go from there. Thank you.
Just a quick follow-up. I’d like to know from the Minister whether or not there is any possibility that the review could be started and could actually be done between now and the end of March of 2011, which would be the end of this fiscal year, so there could be an evaluation of the current infrastructure contributions to communities, that there perhaps could be an amendment to those contributions, an increase, hopefully, and that we could maybe fund that by way of a supp in the next capital year. So basically I’m asking if we can increase the $28 million that’s showing in this capital budget in ‘11-’12. Thank you.
It’s not our intention at this time to increase the $28 million. Part of the challenge is capacity within the department. We still have a lot of the federal money that we’re working with. Again, we feel that five years is a sufficient amount of time to evaluate the progress of the New Deal and see where we need to go from there. If it means increases, then that’s something that we’ll have to come back to the Assembly for. Thank you.
I’m disappointed in that answer. I’m not asking for a review of the total aspect of the New Deal, but simply a review of the infrastructure contribution, the capital part of contribution that this government gives to communities. I think that certainly could be done between now and the end of March.
We do supplementary increases for all manner of things, and communities and their capital structures are a huge part of the Territory and our residents, and they’re the basis on which most of us survive and live. So I would really encourage the Minister to rethink and just evaluate the infrastructure contribution formula only by March 31, 2011. Thank you.
We could evaluate the infrastructure agreement, but it’s not our intent... I mean, we’re looking at three or four months to try and get this in. So it’s not our intent at this particular time to try and make an increase to the infrastructure budget until we do the overall evaluation. Thank you.
I understand, I understood the statement the first time, but I guess I have to encourage you to change your intent, which you’re not willing to do. So I will agree to disagree with you. Thank you, that’s just a comment.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Just a comment. I have nobody else on my list. We’re on page 4-4, activity summary, regional operations, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment, $28.002 million. Agreed?
Agreed.
Okay, that concludes our detail. Can we go back to page 4-2 to do the summary page? Municipal and Community Affairs, department summary, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $28.002. Agreed? Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t think it quite concludes. We were on regional operations and we had community operations to conclude.
I don’t have anything on that page. Thank you, Mr. Bromley, there is no dollar figure on that page so there’s nothing to discuss. Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I request permission to go back to 4-4. I understood that there would be questions on 4-7, but I would like to ask one on 4-4 in the absence of that opportunity. Thank you.
Is committee agreed we go back to page 4-4?
Agreed.
Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Bromley, on 4-4.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to bring up something that I have brought up in the past with this department. That’s that it’s not really fair for communities with greater capacity, due simply to their size, to be the sole beneficiaries of reduced costs and greater local benefits associated with higher building standards and efficiency standards. I think that nor really is it fair that use of NWT funds, tight as they are, should be directed towards inefficient infrastructure. So once again I would like to ask this Minister what has been done to introduce the building standards that the larger communities enjoy and that the GNWT enjoys along with the reduced costs of operation and the greater local economic benefits associated with labour intensive work on efficiency and so on. What are we doing to start setting those building standards for communities that will bring those benefits? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The communities have all submitted their energy plans and we continue to share best practices with them. The Member talks about the large communities as opposed to the smaller communities, and I give the smaller communities a lot of credit. I mean, they know their communities, they know that if they build a building that meets all the standards, that’s very efficient, that it’s a benefit to them and I can’t see a lot of the communities... I believe those days of building a building where the air just flows right through are long gone. So I give the communities a lot of credit and I think they’re doing an excellent job of working with the Arctic Energy Alliance coming up with their energy plans. So they realize that there’s a huge savings to them too, especially to some of the smaller, more isolated communities where things cost a lot more. They, I think, realize that it’s beneficial to them to build a good quality building, because it’s obviously going to bring their costs down. Thank you.
I’ve heard this line repeated often by this Minister, so I would like to ask, would this Minister commit to providing Members with documentation that in fact all of the community infrastructure being put in by communities are meeting the NWT standard of 25 percent better than the model in the National Energy Building Code?
The line that I’ve repeated often is that I give the communities a lot of credit for putting in good quality infrastructure. We don’t regulate the standards, so we’d be unable to provide that information to the Member. Thank you.
My understanding was that Municipal and Community Affairs worked closely with communities on infrastructure advising. Is this Minister saying that he does not know and cannot determine what quality of buildings are being put into our communities?
We’re well aware of the good quality of buildings that are going into our smaller communities. The Member was talking about building standards. I was saying we didn’t regulate building standards. We don’t impose it on them. It’s basically a community’s decision and the communities are knowledgeable enough to realize that they need to make a good investment into sound infrastructure to help their overall cost in the long run. Thank you.
I’ve heard this line many times from this Minister and I’m looking for evidence. I think we’re an evidence-based government and I would like to request that the Minister provide Members with the degree to which community infrastructure is meeting the NWT standards. I’m not asking him now in this question to introduce standards, I’m asking him to provide evidence for the statement he repeatedly makes.
