Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would that money be equivalent to what a settlement of that size would get or a hamlet of that size?
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The community of Lutselk’e is looking at forming a development corporation or a society that can own real property so that we can flow the money to them. They are not looking at changing the status of their community in terms of their lawmaking authority or their governing structure. They are still planning on being a band community like several others and they are just going to form a legal entity that can own real property, so that they can undertake the expenditures that we can provide them through our infrastructure contributions through our capital plan.
My question for the department is, should the band government or First Nations government decide not to incorporate if they felt that incorporation at this point would have some impact on the current governance negotiations that is going on between the three governments, First Nations government, federal government and territorial government, and they decided not to incorporate, is there another avenue in which they can still receive the funding whether it be through a contribution agreement where they would be allowed to spend it or would the government, or can the government, come in and do the spending in the community themselves?
If the community decides not to form a development corporation or a society for the purposes of owning real property, one option is that the GNWT I guess could, like we are, with respect to Lutselk’e and looking at building a water treatment plant for them, undertake to develop infrastructure in that route. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Next on my list I have Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Chair, I want to follow up on the line of questions from Mr. Krutko, MLA for Mackenzie Delta, on the extraordinary funding that communities used to have and just hear the exchange between the Ministers and the Member here in terms of the communities that want to understand that some of the unforeseen disasters happen and communities know that MACA will be there for them and there is a clear understanding about funding if something happens. For example, last year the ice breakup in Norman Wells and certainly they appreciated the support from MACA where some discussions happened in terms of how the community was going to be compensated for taking care of this crucial facility for the community. They had worked out some of the arrangements, but some of the circumstances like that, that happened in our communities, we do what we have to do and hopefully the policies will catch up after. You have to get the water plant fixed up and done and then we catch up with the policies and the paperwork after. They were somewhat concerned that they may have to eat the cost; however, through the grace of this department here, they worked out arrangements where the funding could be reimbursed back to the communities.
I guess that’s what I am more focussed on, is a clear understanding that this extraordinary funding was a good initiative and what I am hearing from the Minister of Financem there are other pots of money that could be useful. I hope there is no grey area in terms of what I am hearing also for municipalities or hamlets to make sure that this is the money for floods and damages of fire. So they know there are no grey areas and they are very clear that they will do what they have to do.
The Aklavik motto is “Never say die.” They do what they have to do to support the community, because this brings up a very important issue for us in the small communities.
I hear what the Ministers are saying. I hope the communities get a clear understanding that when they come to something like that, they know what to do, there is funding in place. I just want to raise that as a comment, maybe a question; that that is clearly communicated to the communities. This extraordinary funding was a good thing, I thought anyhow. I just wanted to make that comment.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Robert C. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, there is no grey area. The formula funding is flowed to the communities to deal with a lot of infrastructure that is required in communities and the community makes the decision as to how they want to spend the money that’s flowed through them. You can’t budget for unforeseen. It’s impossible to budget for unforeseen. We deal with those as they happen.
There was a situation that the Member was referring to where something happened in his community. The community saw that a need was there and they took care of it right away and, working with MACA, we were able to reimburse them some of that cost, because they needed to get the work done right away and I commend them for that. They took care of the work right away.
So, Mr. Chair, I think the communities are quite confident that if something does happen in their community, that it won’t be expected of them to foot the whole bill. We’d do whatever we can to see what pots of money there is out there that we can access on the community’s behalf.
Mr. Chair, certainly the Minister is correct. It’s very difficult to budget for something that you’re not going to expect. I do recognize that and realize that, however, it’s good to know that something that may happen is part of our contingency budget on any type of infrastructure. I think we also experienced this in Fort Good Hope when we had the floods there, not knowing the extent of the floods and they had to work through different departments, and even the federal government, in terms of emergency on floods in the community.
Just again, I know that sometimes, through the paperwork, through the policies and regulations, that our expectations and sometimes the departments’ expectations are different. So we have clearer lines of communication. I think this was noted very clearly in the Fort Good Hope flood. There were a lot of good people went the extra mile to make sure that things were taken care of by the departments in this government here, in the community of Fort Good Hope. However, there are sometimes situations where they require more discussions, in terms of funding, what the community is responsible for and how the government can help with some of the reimbursements on some of the bills that they accumulate over the months and weeks. I think that’s what I’m getting at. I hope I’m making myself clear -- I hope I’m doing that -- to show that there is strong communication lines in terms of funding that’s going to be there for the communities when they want it in some of these unforeseen circumstances that may happen in their communities.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Robert C. McLeod. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the Member’s comments. We are committed, as a government, to working with the communities, through the arrangements. We do have a huge commitment to empowerment and making sure the money flows directly to the communities, recognizing there’s going to be, from time to time, extraordinary or catastrophic situations that require the territorial government to be there, to backstop and to work in collaboration with the communities to sort those issues out, and the commitment is that we’re going to continue to play that role. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. We’re on page 4-4, Municipal and Community Affairs, activity summary, regional operations, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $28.002 million. Agreed?
Agreed.
Committee, we’ll move on to page 4-8, Municipal and Community Affairs, activity summary, community operations, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $12.138 million. Mr. Krutko.
I just have a question with regard to the Building Canada Fund. Again, I mentioned earlier there is a pot of money that’s there for research and development and also for climate change. I’m wondering if the community is able to access that fund. The only department so far that has accessed that fund, I believe, is the Department of Transportation. So I’m wondering, is that also something that the communities are aware of, that there is research money dealing with climate change, and is there a possibility that those dollars can also be allocated to the communities.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Member is correct; Transportation has been allocated a sum of money out of the Building Canada plan to undertake research for climate change and specifically dealing with permafrost issues. There is no provision to allow for communities to access that pot of money, but certainly any of the research that comes out of that and the findings that come out of that research would be made available to communities or anybody else in the Northwest Territories who wanted access to it. Thank you.
Again, just on that point from the deputy minister, I think the argument of permafrost and the effects we’re seeing in the community of Aklavik in regard to the shore erosion. Again, we have other communities such as Tuk, we’re seeing that in regard to having the possibility of moving public infrastructure, because of the effects we’re seeing in regard to shore erosion regardless if it’s in the ocean or on a river where a community is next to a river system. So I’d just like to ask if there is any way that this government could make a provision that a certain amount of those dollars will be designated to resolve some of these climate change challenges the communities are facing.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Robert C. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some of the communities have applied for Building Canada money for specific projects that they’ve identified in their communities. For example, I think Aklavik used their portion of it for the new sewage lagoon and they matched the dollars and some of the dollars came from BCP. They’ve also identified some money for road upgrades through the economic stimulus fund. So the communities will let us know what their priorities are and we continue to work with them on capital plans.
As far as Mr. Aumond said, we’ve shared findings of the report with the communities and we understand that there are some issues facing some of the communities as far as climate change goes, and the Building Canada Fund would have been a good pot of money that the communities could have accessed to deal with some of the issues that they’re facing as far as shoreline erosion goes. Thank you.
Thank you. We’re hearing one thing from the deputy and hearing something else from the Minister. The deputy just stated that the municipalities can’t access this fund, it’s only the Department of Transportation. So, again, how can the Department of Transportation ensure those research dollars are spent on research in regard to shoreline erosion in communities?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Transportation will be looking at issues related to roads. We also have a broader mandate with some marine, as well and making sure that there’s consultation. With the communities, we recognize very clearly that there are some key communities that are going to be targeted by shoreline erosion, and significant dollars have already, over the years, been spent there. As the polar ice cap melts and they say the water levels are going to rise and the severity of storms increases, it’s going to be an issue that’s going to require more and more attention.
I just get back to the commitment as we look at the long-term planning and we’ve met with myself and the Member, with the members of Aklavik, and the work they’re doing at laying out their plan for the future and some of the things they have to do. Those issues we’d have to work collectively to address along with the departments that have, in some cases, mandates that sometimes would seem to overlap or are definitely closely related with Transportation and MACA. Thank you.
My final question is, can we get a commitment from the Minister of Finance that basically there will be some coordination with the Department of Transportation to look at the whole area of shoreline erosion and try to access some of those research dollars that they have so that you can try to find a way to resolve this issue by some method so we can avoid the melting permafrost and the effects we’re seeing on communities and public infrastructure?
Yes, there will be collaboration. I appreciate the good advice from the Member. There will be collaboration amongst the departments to make sure we have a coordinated approach as we deal with the needs of the communities as well as trying to factor in the effect on specific communities of climate change issues such as shoreline erosion. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I see a proportion of the projects proposed here have been approved by Canada. I am wondering if more have been approved since I was last updated on that. Also, perhaps just for some perspective, have projects just generally been approved in the past? We’ve got a little bit of experience now on this. I am wondering if most of our projects or all of our projects in the past have eventually been approved by Canada. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With respect to the Building Canada plan, there have been several projects that have been approved to date, as the Member had mentioned. There are some communities that have undertaken BCP projects, Building Canada plan projects, but still have not used their total allocation that’s available to them, so they will be able to come back. For other projects, there are some communities that have not chosen, at this particular time, to uptake their allocation that’s available to them for the Building Canada plan, but can do so over the next four and a half/five years for the length of the program. Thank you.
I appreciate those comments. So have we had any projects rejected by Canada or is it pretty much a matter of negotiating it through to the end, getting approval? Thank you.
By and large, most of the projects that we have submitted to Canada or asked them to consider have been approved. The criteria is well known and we have had some good experience over the years, so our success rate has been quite high. Thank you.
We are on page 4-8, Municipal and Community Affairs, activity summary, community operations, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $12.138 million.
Agreed.
Agreed. Okay, let’s turn back to page 4-2. This is Municipal and Community Affairs, department summary, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $40.140 million.
Agreed.
Is committee agreed that we have concluded our review of the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs?
Agreed.
Agreed. What is the wish of committee? Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Chairman, I move that we report progress.
---Carried
Can I have the report of Committee of the Whole, please? Mr. Abernethy.
Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Tabled Document 1-16(4), NWT Capital Estimates 2010-2011, and would like to report progress. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of Committee of the Whole be concurred with.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The motion is on the floor. Do we have a seconder? The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
---Carried
Orders of the day for Friday, October 30th, 10:00 a.m.:
Prayer
Ministers’ Statements
Members’ Statements
Returns to Oral Questions
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery
Acknowledgements
Oral Questions
Written Questions
Returns to Written Questions
Replies to Opening Address
Petitions
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills
Tabling of Documents
Notices of Motion
Notices of Motion for First Reading of Bills
Motions
First Reading of Bills
Second Reading of Bills
Bill 2, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2009-2010
Bill 3, Medical Profession Act
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Tabled Document 1-16(4), NWT Capital Estimates 2010-2011
Tabled Document 18-16(4), Supplementary Appropriation No. 2 (Operations Expenditures), 2009-2010
Tabled Document 19-16(4), Supplementary Appropriation No. 3 (Infrastructure Expenditures), 2009-2010
Committee Report 1-16(4), Report on the Review of the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 Annual Reports
Committee Report 2-16(4), Report on the Review of the Auditor General on Contracting for Goods and Services in the Northwest Territories
Report of Committee of the Whole
Third Reading of Bills
Orders of the Day
Thank you, Madam Clerk. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Friday, October 30th, at 10:00 a.m.
---ADJOURNMENT
The House adjourned at 17:27 p.m.
