Of course, there’s probably nothing I could do to prevent the Minister from sticking to his guns. It’s just, you know, a very irresponsible position to take, decision to make.
The best example I can think of is the youth centres, for example, that we are training our youth to have absolutely no respect for the natural world and their future when we build youth centres that you can see daylight under the doors, and don’t have porches and some of the very basic principles of energy conservation, not to mention the high costs associated with that and the lack of ability to pursue other options with those dollars that they are blowing off into the air.
So I am very pleased to hear that there are a few examples that the Minister can think of high efficiency, but I think we have a responsibility to move on this and I will keep trying to help him see the light of day on this. Thank you.
I appreciate the Member’s concern for the small communities and the infrastructure that they are building in the communities. I don’t think it’s irresponsible of us. I think it’s very responsible of us to work with the communities and ensure that they are building buildings of the highest standard, and I believe they are doing that.
I said before, we can’t assume that the communities are incapable of making good decisions that affect their own infrastructure without us imposing it on them, and I will continue to hold that position unless I hear differently from the communities that maybe we do need to think of imposing this on them. Until then, I would suggest that we will continue to work with the communities ensuring that their infrastructure is of the highest standard, and I am confident in their ability to put good products on the ground. Thank you.
Again, these dollars that we’re transferring to communities are investments. I am the first to get in line in terms of transferring responsibilities to our communities. We want to do it in a responsible way and I know when I make investments personally, and I suspect most people do this, they make sure that it’s done in a responsible manner and in a manner that gets the better dollar for the buck, the best value for the dollar; recognizing, of course, that you are not just making the investments for the benefit only of the entity that’s receiving the dollars. You have the benefits of all of your family or the Northwest Territories, in this case, much beyond communities.
So we have a new Minister here still. Perhaps there is room to be working on that. Thank you.
I am not sure if there was a question there. I think it was more of a comment. As I said, we appreciate the Member’s comments and his concern for the welfare of the small communities.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, have similar concerns as Mr. Bromley, but I think realizing it’s not only the requirements that we are putting on communities with regard to developing energy plans and looking at infrastructure, but also capacity for communities, especially when this was being implemented to give communities more ability to make decisions and invest in our capital. I think we overlooked a few things in that process and one of them is the incorporation of communities.
We are finding now that eight communities aren’t able to access capital dollars because they’re not incorporated. I think it’s important that that step should have been solved before we made the decision to transfer all of those authorities to all communities in the Northwest Territories, and made sure that they were incorporated and made sure they had the capacity to take it on. More importantly, that they have the infrastructure in the communities to be able to sustain such a transfer. So I would just like to ask the Minister of Finance or MACA, what are we doing to ensure that through these dollars, they are being accessed by these communities -- all communities, 33 communities -- to be fair to all communities and we are not holding back money simply because they’re not incorporated?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Robert C. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are addressing the need for capacity and we have heard the Member’s concerns. We are working with HR, as I announced, to develop a strategy for communities to train and retain. A lot of the people that work in the communities and actually had a meeting with members of LGANT this afternoon and there were probably three-quarters of the SAOs in the Territories at this meeting. There were some band communities there, and the band communities are the ones we are working with right now to form development corporations so they can own real property. We’ve made a lot of progress and the bands are realizing it’s in their best interest to form these dev corps, and then the money would start flowing to them and then they would be able to decide on the infrastructure in their community.
I have not heard yet from any community in the Northwest Territories that has said don’t give us this money, we can’t handle it. We’ve had communities saying we need some help and the regional offices are very good about going out and helping the communities, but I have had no one say yet that this is not a good idea.
This is something that many of us who have lived in small communities and who have served on small community councils realized at the time we were a very small speck in the overall government picture, and our local infrastructure, which was important to us, once it was buried in the corporate plan, we had to wait a long time to see anything on the ground. Now with all the money that is flowing to the communities, they know best what is a priority in their communities and they know best the infrastructure they need right away. There are some challenges, but I think for the most part those challenges are being addressed. The communities are adapting very well to the new responsibility they have. Thank you.
I’ll try to repeat the question. My question is that there were eight communities that were not incorporated and would not be able to spend their capital investment dollar because they were not incorporated. They did not have the ability to own assets. I think for ourselves, as a government, before we made this transfer, that problem should have been solved and not told sorry, you are getting a bunch of Building Canada funds but you can’t spend it because you are not incorporated. That is the issue. I think as a government, that should have been solved or find ways to mitigate the problem so we don’t have to go through the problem of having to tell people sorry, we have your money in a bank, but you can’t access it because we don’t think you’ve got your driver’s licence yet. That’s exactly what this scenario is turning out to be.
We can give money to NGOs, we can give money to non-government organizations, no questions asked. But when it comes to communities, because you are a band council, you can’t own assets. For me, that is the issue I am talking about here. Again, if there are capital dollars being allocated to all the communities, they should be spent by those communities and not held back because of public red tape. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In response to the Member’s question, we have made a good deal of progress, as the Minister stated, on getting these band governments to undertake the necessary steps to be able to own real property. Three of them have already made, have fulfilled that journey and can now…We flow the money to them to undertake their own projects. Some communities are almost there. Even those communities who are not able to own real property, at their request we are going to be undertaking projects for them such as water treatment plants in four or five of the band communities. It is not like we are telling them they can’t have the money and they can’t undertake any projects. It is just that they can’t or have not yet taken those steps and we are working with them so they can own real property. But even in the cases where they don’t, at their request, we will undertake projects for them so that they can have the infrastructure in the community. Thank you.
Another issue I have a problem with especially in regards to capital, is that we seem to put the onus on communities that any assets that this government transferred to the community, it is up to them to repair it, fix it. If it breaks down, that is your problem.
I think this government has to realize that a lot of these assets that we did transfer to communities are going to have to be replaced. But with the existing dollars that they get, you cannot replace a water treatment plant. You cannot replace a major piece of infrastructure like a utilidor system with the existing dollars that they have. But as government departments, we know that every time the government department has an issue, it is either a forced growth issue or basically, well, because of emergency circumstances where we have a culvert collapse or basically a bunch of pilings are falling down around a building. We find funds for those things, because they are so-called emergencies.
I think there has to be some sort of capital funding project for communities to access similar to the question I raised today, shoreline erosion in the community. Shoreline erosion should not be the responsibility of the community. If anything, it should be a government obligation to ensure we protect communities by emergency funding resources so that they are treated just like any other government department. I think, for myself, it is something that I feel quite strongly about, especially communities that have systems that basically have to be replaced.
I use Fort McPherson for instance. They have a water utilidor system. Inuvik had a utilidor system. There is a major capital influx to change that system in regards to capital dollars from this government. But yet, for the communities that have utilidor systems, now it is their obligation to find those capital dollars.
Another example is water treatment plants. We had five water treatment plants replaced. Thankfully, MACA hung onto it and did it as a project for the bulk of those projects, so they delivered. But again, that is the role government has to retain and play in regards to capital expenditures in communities to ensure there are emergency funds or disaster relief in regards to forest fires, like I mentioned, major floods. We see it every other year in most of our communities. It is a capital cost associated with that, but we can’t leave the communities hanging there without having assurance from the government that there are going to be emergency situations where this government will come in to help. I would just like to know, under disaster relief or whatever we want to call it, that capital dollars are going to be there when those incidents happen and it won’t come out of the municipalities’ pocket. It will come out of the government’s pocket. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Robert C. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Disaster mitigation is one of the requirements of applying for…There are many pots of money out there. If there is a disaster in the community, I know for a fact that we wouldn’t leave it to the community to deal with the effects of that disaster. We would do whatever we can to find monies to help them. Applications could be put in for some federal money, Building Canada project. There was an opportunity there for them to seek some money from there and then they match it.
I don’t mean to keep harping on this, but am I the only one in this building that has confidence in the communities’ ability to deal with their infrastructure? I have not had one community say to us that this is a bad idea and we don’t like it. If there are extraordinary circumstances, then, obviously, we never leave the communities hanging anywhere. If there are extraordinary circumstances, then, obviously, MACA will step up to the plate and see what we can do to assist the communities.
I told LGANT this morning. I have spoken to the NWT Association of Communities, which is all the elected officials from across the Territories. I have spoken to LGANT, which are all the SAOs and the band managers from across the Territories. They all seem quite happy with the program and I actually had a couple of them say to me today that they are pleased with the new program. Until I start hearing from them that they think this is a bad idea and maybe we should go back to the old corporate capital plan and we can wait years for our small little projects to get on the ground which are important to us but not as important in the big picture, I will continue to maintain my confidence in the community.
As I said, it is not MACA’s intention to leave any community hanging if anything happens in the community that requires us to assist them in any way possible, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have a lot of questions. I want to express a concern and perhaps hear from the department what they are doing about it, but my concern has to do with, again, the infrastructure that communities are receiving from GNWT and the need, then, for communities to look after those buildings and to fund the operation and maintenance of those buildings. Tied in with that is the fact that as buildings need to be replaced, communities need the extra funding to do those capital building, capital replacements, capital cost replacements.
But I am more concerned about what seems to be a trend anyway, at least for several years, from what I am aware of, that the infrastructure contribution to communities is steady at a certain dollar amount, but, at the same time, the communities are more and more acquiring buildings that require them to provide for the O and M for those particular buildings.
I guess my question really goes to the future. How long is the department going to maintain the same infrastructure dollars for our communities that we currently have? How are they planning to assist communities in taking on these extra costs, which basically are the result of extra O and M? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess with respect to the amount of infrastructure funding that we are providing communities today, there is no intention at this time to look at changing that amount. Some communities, as the Member made out, are saving that amount of money on an annual basis for a project that they want to undertake.
However, having said that, we do acknowledge the concern that the Member has expressed. We will be reviewing our funding policies with the NWTAC to look at what is out there adequately funded to upkeep those buildings that they currently have and were transferred to them. In many cases, the buildings that were transferred to them, they were already funded to provide O and M for the government just to own them. In terms of ownership, the community governments had the money to maintain them originally. It is something that is on our radio screen. It is something that we will work in concert with the NWTAC on and see how we move going forward, given the amount of resources MACA has in its budget to give to communities for that purpose. Thank you.
Thanks for the answer. I appreciate a lot that this is recognized, that the concern of the communities is recognized and that the department is looking at doing something about it. If there is a review of either the formula funding or just the total funding for communities, is there any idea from the Minister or the deputy minister when that review might be done? If there is any change, and I presume upward, would it be for the next capital estimates year or is it conceivable that it might be done midway through this next fiscal year so there is time for some back and forth and feedback and discussion? Thank you.
We plan on undertaking the review of our formula for O and M over the next 2010-11 fiscal year. With respect to the amount of capital, we have not had any expressions of interest to change that amount of money that has been flowing to the communities. It has only really been flowing at the amount that we have to date for three years. This will be the fourth year coming up. That has not been a concern that is passed on to the department, but certainly with respect to the O and M and how with the impacts of the infrastructure on the O and M, it is something that we will be looking at. Thank you.
I have just one last comment. That is good to hear. I imagine most communities are reasonably happy with the amount of capital funding they get with the gas tax money and Building Canada money. They probably have almost more than they need at this point, although nobody would ever say that out loud, except me, I think. I just want to express my appreciation to the department that they have recognized this need and that it is going to be dealt with. That is all I have.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Robert C. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Member’s comment. We are constantly, when we do meet with our federal counterparts, we are always mentioning the fact that they do flow a lot of money into the Territories. We need to start looking at the O and M, because there are a lot of projects going on the ground, so we need to increase the O and M funding. I think we all know that there has been an increase in the O and M for the last couple of years, recognizing the fact that they are getting a lot of new infrastructure on the ground. We will continue to work with the communities and will continue to speak to the folks in Ottawa on our need for more O and M money for a lot of the infrastructure dollars that they have given us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The comments I have for the Minister are in terms of the empowerment of the communities to take over the facilities and some of the assets that are going to have some decision-making authorities. I would like to talk about the water and waste treatment plants in our communities and our ability to meet these new standards in Canada now. I want to ask the Minister, over time, how are we going to support our communities to meet these new national standards in our water and in sewer and in wastewater treatment plants and also the regulatory requirements that will be attached to these facilities?
I know in one community that our water plant is being an issue, because of the high cost of maintaining it. Sometimes lack of resources depletes that budget item for looking after that water plant, so the community is quite hesitant to see if they want to take that water treatment plant over. I just want to ask the Minister in terms of some going forward plans in terms of these water national standards.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Robert C. McLeod.
I think the first part of the Member’s question, if I understood it correctly, was wastewater and the new standards. Obviously that is a concern, because if they were to impose a new standard on us, I think that we all realize that it would be a multimillion dollar investment. We could never expect the communities to try and fund that. Even as a territorial government it would be awfully difficult for us. So they would obviously have to pony up some money for us to impose these new standards on the communities, especially with the possibility of that changing.
As far as water treatment plants go, we have come a long ways in the last little while to standardize a lot of the design so water treatment plants between communities have interchangeable parts. I am not sure if the one the Member is referring to is in a community where they have to order filters from England. Those were issues that we dealt with in the early part of this. We will still continue to see what we can do to improve situations like that and see what we can do to help them standardize a lot of the equipment that they have, because it is an issue with a couple of communities that have water treatment plants that were built before we started bundling. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, certainly the Minister pretty well knows which water treatment plant I was talking about and it’s certainly an issue here. Now, I guess, the other one is up in Colville Lake regarding the new water treatment plant and the ability for them to have proper O and M budget to maintain that new highly technical water treatment plant there and meeting the new national standard.
The Minister is correct, you know, if we do want to come up to the new standards of waste and water treatment plants, this money’s got to be attached to it by the federal government to us to pass it on. I mean, we just can’t give it to the communities. So he’s certainly correct there. So is there anything that this side can do to support the Minister in terms of asking the feds for these types of dollars if we are to meet the national standards? Otherwise, we’re not doing any services to our communities and we try to allow them to take over these facilities here. So I guess I want to ask the Minister, in terms of the regulatory requirements, how stringent or how flexible is the appropriate federal agencies or the government here in having these regulatory requirements set for our communities’ water treatment plants and wastewater treatment facilities?
Obviously, all our water treatment plants meet the Canadian standards for drinking water. Then we’ll have to, I think, deal with the wastewater potential being imposed on us when we come to it. I’m not quite sure where that’s at right now. So we’re monitoring that quite closely to see if they decide to impose that on us, then I think we’d have to have a serious discussion as the Legislative Assembly and with the federal government as to the funding for these new sewage treatment plants. It’s going to be awfully expensive for one of our smallest communities like Kakisa with 42 people to be expected to put in a multimillion dollar wastewater plant. So we’ll have to have that discussion and I’m not quite sure where those regulations and standards are at right now.
If I could ask the Minister if he could maybe forward where some of the regulation requirements, if he could forward it over to us in terms of seeing where things are at with the federal government and the Minister, I would certainly appreciate that. So we could possibly give a heads up to our communities that this may be coming down and somebody should look at it when we’re looking at planning or constructing or whatever through the New Deal and what’s required of them, possibly, in the future. So then we know what’s coming down the tube from the federal government.
I want to also ask the Minister about the land issue. I know it’s a big issue here and there are a lot of things that need to happen in the communities in terms of making sure that land is made available for project infrastructure. We did have an issue, and I’m not too sure...It’s cleared up right now in my community of Tulita, and there are other issues in the Sahtu in terms of building housing projects. However, because of the land issue dispute between MACA and the Housing Corporation and the community, it kind of got lost somewhere. For example, one of the leaders in Tulita reminded me that we lost some houses because we couldn’t get our land issue in place there. So I hope that this is something that the Minister can help with by talking to the Minister of the Housing Corporation to see if they can work together on how to get the land issues settled so we can have houses on the ground in Tulita or in the Sahtu. Thank you.
In response to the Member’s first concern, we will forward all the information that we have to the Member so they can see where this particular initiative is at with the federal government.
On the second point, we continue to work with the communities to identify lands that are available. I’m not quite aware of the situation in Tulita, but I will have a chat with the Minister of Housing and see if we can come up with a plan for dealing with that. But I will find out about it and I’ll get back to the Member, and maybe he’d be able to let me know the exact issue there.
Just in closing, I want to say, Mr. Chair, that after being in Tulita for a bit there, I noticed some of the young employees of the hamlet in terms of the water treatment plant operators that...The young guy that I met at the airport in Tulita talked about going to Norman Wells and getting some training to be a certified water plant operator and this type of initiative has really been appreciated by me. This person was very proud to say that he has been certified as a plant operator. It does go a long way with our young people in terms of training them. So I wanted to let the Minister know, and his staff, that there are some challenges and, certainly, some agree to disagree on some of the issues, but when this young man talked to me about his certification and him being a plant operator, you certainly see the pride in him in terms of his ability to do services to the people. So I just wanted to let the Minister know that. There are other issues we need to talk about; however, we’ll do them at some other time. Thank you.
Thank you. I appreciate the Member’s comments. He’s absolutely correct with the infrastructure that we’re putting in the community. I think the department has taken the lead in trying to get as many community people trained as possible. It’s an initiative that we’re quite proud of and I think we’re seeing a lot of positive results come out of this. So I thank the Member again for his comments.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, getting back to my questions, I don’t want to leave the impression with the public that’s out there that we don’t care for our municipalities and the Minister is the only one that does. I don’t think that’s an appropriate comment. I’ve been here for 14 years raising issues on behalf of my constituents, and I’m still raising issues that haven’t been resolved for 14 years.
Regardless if you transfer that authority to municipalities or whatever...In the past there was a funding source called extraordinary funding which was there to assist communities whenever there was some sort of an unforeseen expenditure that had to be covered, which was a budget item in the budget of the government. I’m wondering why is there not such a fund today in this budgetary process that allows for extraordinary funding so that when communities do get in trouble, that they are able to get some assistance from this government, unforeseen or not. There has to be such a fund in place to assist them in regard to disasters or whatever. I’d just like to ask exactly why is that something that is not part and parcel of this budgetary process and is that something that can be considered.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Robert C. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Member wanted to make something quite clear and so do I. I never made the comment that Members didn’t care about the communities. I don’t think I’m that stupid, to be quite honest with you. What I said, and the Member talks about the 14 years that he’s been here, and he’s been able to see the devolution of authority to the communities and he’s able to see the past history where a lot of the small community projects got into the corporate plan and they were basically just bumped and bumped and bumped each year when other emergencies come up. So I just wanted to make sure we clarified that. I’m still very confident in the communities’ ability and I think that was my point to deliver the product.
I’m not quite sure about the extraordinary funding. I’m really not sure how to respond to that. I mean, the bulk of MACA’s money, infrastructure money, pretty well all of it goes to the communities. If things happen in the communities where they need help, if something happens, a flood, a disaster, then we will assist those communities any way we possibly can. If it means coming to this Legislative Assembly for extraordinary funding, that’s something we’d consider as the need arises. If it means going after the federal government to see what pots of money they have there to assist the communities to deal with the situation, then we’ll do that too. As far as a pot of extraordinary funding, I don’t think that it’s in the budgetary process right now. I suppose if it was the will of this Assembly, then we would have to consider that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Maybe I can refer that question to the Minister of Finance. Since he’s the banker here, he might have the answer to that one.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as Minister McLeod indicated, communities will not be abandoned. There are opportunities for support under other pots of money, emergency measures money. If there are extraordinary circumstances, then, as the Minister has committed to, the communities will not be left on their own trying to deal with these unplanned extraordinary events. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Krutko.
Again, Mr. Chair, getting back to my original point in regard to unforeseen events, like I mentioned, the shoreline erosion communities, one of the biggest challenges the communities are going to face, especially in the Arctic, is permafrost. We can see what permafrost is doing to communities such as Inuvik in regard to the infrastructure from roads to public buildings. For us, that cost is an unforeseen cost. That cost is not part of the capital expenditure funds that were given to communities. The formula funding does not contemplate what that is and we realize that could be in the billions of dollars. I think for this government to totally not apply it under this situation is...We realize that that is the reality of what’s going to happen in the Arctic. I’d just like assurance from the government that as part of the planning process, you also realize that you cannot leave that situation to be resolved solely by the communities, and this government has to take the responsibility of ensuring that we do have the ability, as not only government but as communities, to take on this threat that we all live with in regard to global warming, climate change, melting permafrost and, basically, the effect it’s having on public infrastructure, not just highways and airports and government infrastructure but community infrastructure. Thank you.
I just want to reassure the Member and the House that as we move forward with our climate change adaptation plans and mitigation plans, that we will be spending money. Right now it’s not clearly budgeted for. I can point to, for example, the response that we had to undertake with the rotting piles issue as the ground has warmed up and all the piles across the land and the buildings up north required replacement or adjusting or repair, that we came forward through our own budgeting process with money that was built in to accommodate that.
The same is going to happen in these circumstances. As they come to bear, soil erosion or other permafrost-related issues or other totally unanticipated issues, that we, collectively, are going to have to be working out how we’re going to pay for those, trying to anticipate what they’re going to be, how we’re going to respond, and then come up with the money to pay. There is going to be a cost and we are going to be in the lead on this, because this is our responsibility. We will work with communities. The community funding is for the day-to-day running of their operations. They are not in the position, as the Member has indicated, to anticipate what’s going to happen on their own. So collectively we’re going to work on this. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Next on my list is Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I guess, just looking at the capital funding and the New Deal for MACA, I just want to make some general comments and ask a couple of questions for clarification. I’ve always felt that the smaller communities in the NWT have less infrastructure, less good infrastructure than the larger communities. I understand that a lot of that infrastructure is built up with property taxes and so on that may not be levied as high in small communities and that creates a market, that creates incentives for individuals to ensure that their own properties are of a higher standard to get a better market value. Unfortunately, in small communities there is no market, but I still feel that the government is under some sort of obligation at this time to get some sort of equalization into equalization funding or catch-up funding in some of the communities that are lagging a little further behind than others, like some that don’t have basic roads and so on. We have communities that don’t have roads even within the communities.
So I think that I understand that we are working towards that by changing the status of some of the communities. My first question for the government is, when a band government, a First Nations government incorporates, does the funding then come to them at a level of hamlet status or settlement status is what the community gets now although they are not getting the transfer at this time, but they are funded at a settlement status, for a lack of not knowing what else to call it? That’s my first question.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If the band community decides to incorporate and become, for example, a hamlet, then they would be funded in accordance with a formula that we have for hamlets. If they were to become a village, for example, then they would be funded as a village or a town if they became a town. So they would get that. That would reflect the amount of responsibility they would take, depending on what status they chose for themselves. Thank you.
Specifically Lutselk’e, are they incorporating to become a hamlet? If they choose to incorporate with the negotiations going on right now between Lutselk’e and MACA, are they incorporating to get hamlet status or settlement status?
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Robert C. McLeod.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Lutselk’e is forming a development corporation. They are not, as far as I know, making any attempt to become a settlement or a hamlet. They are looking into forming a development corporation so the money could start flowing to them. Thank you.
