Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can commit to having a look at how we can increase this, but as I said, looking at our fiscal situation that we are in, in light of the next budget cycle year, we can have a look at how we do it. It doesn't meet the definition of forced growth, so I can't use that to increase it. But it would take all 19 Members of the Assembly to help straighten out our fiscal situation where we can, like I say, put money into small communities in this type of initiative.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for recognizing me here. We heard in the news that the federal government has put the Mackenzie Valley project on the backburner. Can the Minister please explain why we have to hear about this in the news and not through the normal process? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister of Transportation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The department drafted a letter to inform the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure of the federal government's decision to temporarily suspend the Mackenzie Valley Highway funding proposal. Unfortunately, the correspondence was delayed to Committee.
I appreciate the importance of keeping Members informed on decisions around the federal infrastructure funding and have taken steps to ensure decisions are communicated in a timely manner. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Minister for his answer. I guess we are going to have to work on our mail service here in the Legislative Assembly so that we can actually get these documents on time instead of through the news.
Can the Minister confirm if the federal government has not put this just on hold or the backburner and when did he find out if it has been put there?
The federal government has informed us that the review of the Mackenzie Valley Highway project proposal under the new Building Canada Fund national infrastructure component has been temporarily suspended until the federal government makes a decision on phase two of the capital infrastructure money, their long-term plan. Phase two planning fund is expected to be announced early next year in communicating the temporary suspension of the Mackenzie Valley Highway project.
The federal government indicated the desire to align such projects with the Minister of Infrastructure and communities' mandate, which includes strategic projects such as transportation corridors, ports, borders, gateways, etc. The Mackenzie Valley Highway project, as the House knows, is a key strategic transportation corridor, and we have reminded Minister Sohi of the importance of this project as well as other priority transportation corridors in Northwest Territories.
I thank the Minister for his answer. I am thankful he is actually promoting this. Can the Minister please say what type of promotion, besides just talking to him? Has there been a business study that they have presented to him or anything like that?
One of the priority actions outlined in the mandate of the Assembly is to capture opportunities to invest in transportation and infrastructure by working to secure funding to advance the Mackenzie Valley highway, the all-weather road to Whati, and to improve access to the Slave geological province. I can assure the House and Members that I am taking every opportunity to encourage and invest – investment in the key of these three corridors. I personally met with Minister Sohi in the federal department to talk about this as well as Minister Garneau to reiterate the importance of the corridors to Northerners and the Mackenzie Valley Highway Project and the need for federal investment.
My communications with Minister Sohi have focused on the need for phase two funding under the long-term federal infrastructure plan to address the infrastructure deficit in the North and, in particular, the need to advance the three priority corridors including the Mackenzie Valley Highway. We have also submitted to Minister Garneau in support of implementation recommendations to the North made in the CTA report panel, which we always talk about every time we have a chance to meet federal Ministers. I will continue to bring this to the federal Ministers in promoting the Mackenzie Valley Highway.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mahsi cho to the Minister for his answer. Will the Minister please commit to provide us on this side a quarterly or bi-annual report on the status of this project so we don't lose it? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
What I can do is commit to provide updates on the Mackenzie Valley Highway project as they become available to us. I will commit to providing them to the Members as they come in.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. I wonder if the Minister could tell me what the rationale is for reducing clothing and food benefits to income assistance recipients since the introduction of the Canada Child Tax Benefit? Masi.
Masi. Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, previous, before we made the changes to the income assistance program, the federal child benefit was actually counted as income. What we did was we took that child tax benefit out of the assessment, which came out of the food and clothing and used it to recalculate how we get the new funding going forward.
So it was actually part of the food and clothing. That came out, so it wouldn't be re-assessed again. The NWT contribution remained the same. That is what is shown. It was just taken out to do a different way of re-calculating. That is what the Member is referring to, I believe.
I appreciate that the Minister has now enabled income assistance recipients to keep a wider range of income than was previously the case. However, the amount of money paid for both food and clothing has been reduced for income assistance recipients. How can the Minister justify reducing these assistance amounts when they are meant to alleviate poverty for the people who are most in need?
When we restructured the program, the Federal Child Tax Benefit was included in the assessments. We took those assessments out. Our contribution, the NWT's contribution, hasn't changed. That's what the Member is seeing, that number now, not included with the federal dollars. So not that the federal dollars are out and we're not assessing it. It does look like the funding went down for food and clothing, which, in fact, it hasn't. Actually, more families are getting more money.
Since we haven't had any concerns brought forward since we did the implementation, as a result we did do a review. We reviewed 171 families since we did the implementation. I just want to share a couple of quick stats, here. Since we put the changes in, we have seen an increase in approximately 14 per cent from July to September for our families. In July, approximately $79,000 of children's federal benefits was counted as income. September of that year, families were getting a reported total approximately of $166,000 extra in that month.
Instead of taking $79,000 back, we actually increased it to $166,000. On average, that's about $500 extra per family, and then 17 of the 171 families received a total of $10,120 in September in child support payments. The government has not reduced its food and clothing allowance. It has remained the same. We just took out the Child Tax Benefit and have actually given families more money since the implementation.
The information I'm drawing on is information that the Minister provided. We're talking about the amount of money that's paid to income assistance recipients. In every example that the Minister provided, the amount of money paid for clothing and for food has gone down.
While the bottom line for most people is better, it's not as good as it could be because the overall effect of the Canada Child Tax Benefit has been diminished. So my question again is: how can the Minister justify not enabling families to collect the whole amount that they are eligible for?
In fact, they are collecting every cent that's come from the federal government. As I said before, our dollars didn't change, their contributions didn't change, and all the examples that the Member is referring to in the presentation we gave her, we took out the Federal Child Tax Benefit and it has been recalculated so that families actually get every cent that they were supposed to get from the federal government. Our contribution hasn't changed. So every example is just that Federal Child Tax Benefit coming out so that families can get every cent that they were entitled to.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Minister for that answer. I think one of the major issues here is that I needed the help of the research department to understand exactly what was going on in the administration of these benefits. I stand by the remarks that I made, that every example shows a decrease in both food and clothing allowances.
I understand the Minister doesn't believe that this is the case, but that's what my research shows. So maybe -- and this is going to turn into a comment rather than a question. I'll follow up with written questions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. I'll take that as a comment. Oral questions. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister responsible for the Northwest Territories Power Corporation explain if the corporation is, in fact, overcharging by 114 per cent for the costs of power delivered to Northland Utilities for resale in the Yellowknife market? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister responsible for the Northwest Territories Power Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, there is no basis for NUL's assumption or assertion that we are overcharging by 114 per cent. As the House will know, electricity rates and cost of service percentages are regulated by the Public Utilities Board, which is an open and thorough process. So residents here are not being overcharged. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Minister also explain if the Yellowknife rates are being used to subsidize rates in other rate zones throughout the NWT?
Yellowknife rates do not subsidize those in other rate zones, such as the South Slave or the thermal communities. This could never be the case, as cost of service in one zone is not applied to other zones.
Just to return to my first question, the Minister made a comment about overcharging by 115 per cent. The reality is it's a 100 per cent rate versus 114 per cent rate. So are Yellowknifers being charged 14 per cent more than other communities?
No. Residents of Yellowknife are not being overcharged and are not paying 114 per cent of other zones. If that's the question; I'm not sure that I understood the question fully.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Either way, the rates for power generation are far too high in the Northwest Territories. Making the North a more affordable place is an important priority for me and for every Member here. Can the Minister explain what this government is doing and how it's working with the Power Corporation to reduce the high cost of electricity? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I'm sure Members of this House will recall, a new board of directors was put in place in the spring of this year, which in itself represented a considerable savings. If I recall, the number is approximately $1 million. The new board has been tasked with many things, but clearly they are there to examine the costs of providing power in the Northwest Territories. We are faced with certain difficulties in that the population is stable, or declining in some cases, and yet costs continue to go up. So we are working with the corporation, the board, to reduce costs. We recognize that this is an important issue. We are looking as far afield as perhaps supplying power to southern jurisdictions. So this is a primary focus of the new board, the corporation and the Minister.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I spoke of a most disturbing decision by the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources to not accept a decision by the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board on a water license amendment and to send it back for reconsideration.
I would like to ask the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources whether this has happened before under water legislation for the Northwest Territories, where a Minister has refused to accept a decision and sent the matter back for reconsideration? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. ENR is only aware of one instance, in December 2011, where the federal Minister of the day of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was unable to render a decision on the renewal of a type-A water license. It was actually held by the NWT Power Corporation. The Minister identified that the decision could not be rendered until an issue that was outstanding was resolved. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
That's an interesting example. I thank the Minister for it. That water legislation has basically been in place since 1970, early 1970, so this is a very rare occurrence, indeed. I don't understand why the Minister did not write to the company after the first letter and say no further representations could be considered after the public hearing by the board. Some may view this as a breach of procedural fairness. Why did the Minister not tell the company that the proper avenue for questioning procedural fairness was to seek judicial review? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Member is correct. It was sent back to the board because there was a question of procedural fairness. As he said before in his Member's statement, with devolution we will have more responsibility and ability to deal with these a lot quicker than they have been dealt with in the past, and I can commit to the Member and this House that we take that responsibility very seriously, and we will be looking at ways in the future where we can avoid the confusion.
I'm glad to hear the Minister is prepared to clear up this confusion, but can the Minister tell this House and the public whether there are any specific measures or policies in place to prevent this kind of approach of accepting submissions from water licence applicants after public hearings?
Mr. Speaker, we can't control the correspondence from any external parties during the ministerial decision phase of the water licensing process, and correspondence received during the decision phase is not considered in making the decision. The Minister, we rely on the board's reasons for the decision, and, as far as any policies in place, I would have to do some research and follow up with the Member.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I am pleased to work with the Minister to make sure that we can protect the integrity of our co-management systems, but some would say the GNWT has shown its cards by siding with the mining company rather than the protection of the environment and thrown the integrity of the evidencebased co-management system into doubt. We'll also have to convince Ottawa that we are capable of managing our own resources if we hope to get any further jurisdiction or powers under the devolution agreement and process. Mr. Speaker, how does the Minister intend to rebuild public confidence in our co-management systems, ensure procedural fairness, and convince Ottawa that we can properly and fairly manage our own resources? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that it's true that the government is siding with the mining companies, and as far as restoring public confidence, as I said before, there was a bit of confusion and we will take steps to ensure that this doesn't happen again, and we will have a clear set of rules that everyone is going to need to follow, and I believe Ottawa will come to the conclusion that we are quite capable of managing our resources. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
