Debates of October 20, 2016 (day 34)

Thank you, Minister Cochrane. Anything further? Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sure the department does know this, but coming from a small community, for example, like Tsiigehtchic, with the amount of funds that we do get for a major project, for example, the band office or the new municipal office they're planning for, in order to build a piece of infrastructure like this, we do have to save for a number of years to have enough funds to proceed with the project. It's always important to keep this in mind.

I know that was one of the concerns, that the communities weren't spending that money, but you always have to remember from the communities' aspect is we have to first save in order to have enough to pay for our projects. That was one of the reasons why those weren't happening, but in visiting all the communities, you see the infrastructure, whether it's the new hamlet office in Fort McPherson or all the other great infrastructure the communities have, all the new equipment now. It's very good to see, very positive, and hopefully this continues. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Blake. Minister Cochrane.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that's a bit of a comment, but I do want to express my honour to be able to travel to the communities and see both the strengths and the challenges that are faced within the diverse communities in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Cochrane. Committee, any further questions on pages 65, 66? Questions? Thank you, committee. That brings us back to page 65. Municipal and Community Affairs, regional operations, infrastructure investments, $28,002,000. Are we agreed? Oh, sorry. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I thought I had indicated that I wanted to get back on the list. I won't be as long. Just two questions. The first question is: when they talk about infrastructure deficit in the communities, we know now that paved streets or chip sealed streets or whatever type of suppressant you wish to put on your streets is not part of infrastructure deficit. Is housing, is staff housing, part of infrastructure deficit?

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Cochrane.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, housing is not in the allocated amount. But as stated earlier, we will provide a list of the items that are approved. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Cochrane. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Earlier on the deputy referred to the Building Canada Fund. At one point, MACA had a seven-year agreement followed by a ten-year agreement. I'm wondering, since this is well within the time, I'm wondering why the BCF is not incorporated into this number. In fact, not incorporated into the actuals and last fiscal year as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Ms. Young.

Speaker: MS. YOUNG

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The federal funding programs that we receive show up as Fund 3 in our budget, not as vote to funding, capital funding. So all you see here is the GNWT funding provided, the $28 million. All of the federal funding is an application-based program to Canada, and when we get the money from Canada it shows up as Fund 3, as federal funding received on behalf of others.

Mr. Chair, the Minister has asked me to clarify. The infrastructure deficit is calculated based on a core basket of goods. Community governments can still choose to spend money outside what that core basket of goods is.

So when I say they can spend money of staff housing, that's true. Is it included in the infrastructure deficit calculation? No, it's not. So because it's not included in the deficit calculation doesn't mean you can't spend the money on those things. So just to clarify the disconnect there.

Thank you, Ms. Young. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if I heard the term "vote 3.” "Vote 3" is the term? When do we see the capital that is vote 3 capital through the Building Canada Fund? If we're well within the agreement and we need this $28 million to leverage the funding, at which point is it incorporated so that we can vote on it?

If the Building Canada Fund is used to build territorial infrastructure like highways and so on but a portion of it is going to the municipality, yet it's not reflected anywhere -- like, today, we're talking about capital. Right? We're not going to talk about capital again this year. We're talking about it now. Why would it not be reflected here? What prevents vote 3 funding from being reflected in this document? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Cochrane.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fund 3 actually is federal monies. You don't see it in here; this is only Government of the Northwest Territories monies. We do not have a vote in the federal monies. We fund all the projects through; the federal government decides what allocations they'll accept and what not. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Cochrane. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if we look at infrastructure for other departments, we'll say, such as Transportation or maybe Health, we know that there is $81 million in the capital plan for our partners that are building the hospital.

This is the cash flow that's going through here. I don't understand how that could be reflected in here, or other federal money that's going into the Inuvik-Tuk Highway gets reflected in the capital plan but the Building Canada Fund of money that's going to the municipalities is not reflected in the capital plan. I just wouldn’t mind having that clarified.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Ms. Young.

Speaker: MS. YOUNG

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, the difference is the Inuvik-Tuk Highway as an example is a GNWT project that is being done by the Department of Transportation. When it comes to community government projects, all we have here is the block amount of money that we are providing out to communities.

Their projects are determined through their own individual community capital plans and they apply to, for example, when there is federal funding, they apply for projects to Canada and have them approved. So in our capital plan, we aren't approving community projects. We are only approving the block of money that we provide out to communities. Communities themselves through their community councils approve which projects they are proceeding with and which ones are being held, and that's the difference. These are not GNWT projects; they're community-specific projects.

Thank you, Ms. Young. Mr. Beaulieu.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just can't agree with that. The funding through the Building Canada Plan was given to the GNWT under three different bundles, Bundle Number 1, Bundle Number 2, and Bundle Number 3. Within those bundles, a percentage of it was taken out and it was put to municipalities.

The GNWT indicated that some was going to go to territorial infrastructure, some to municipal infrastructure. So I'm just trying to figure out how the communities can reach into the Building Canada Plan on their own to pull the money out and then reflect it in their communities? What are the logistics of that? I'm not understanding it.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Ms. Young.

Speaker: MS YOUNG

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we receiving funding through a federal program like Building Canada the Member's correct, there was a decision made on how much would go to Department of Transportation projects and how much would be set aside for community projects.

In the case of Department of Transportation, they've identified their three bundles of projects that are being brought forward to Canada for approval and they're put on the GNWT Capital Plan because they are GNWT projects.

For the community projects what happens is we decide on an allocation per community, but then the community prepares the project application and we funnel it through to Canada for approval. We actually don't approve or not approve community projects under the Building Canada. So it's a slight nuance. But that being said, these are publicly approved lists, once the project is approved by Canada we can provide a complete list of all of the projects to the Members that have been approved under any of the federal programs.

Thank you, Ms. Young. Mr. Beaulieu. Thank you for not taking as long there, Mr. Beaulieu. Committee, any further questions on page 65, 66? If not, committee, that brings us to Municipal and Community Affairs, regional operations, infrastructure investment, $28,002,000. Are we agreed?

Speaker: SOME HON. MEMBERS

Agreed.

Thank you, committee. That brings us back to page 63, Municipal and Community Affairs, total capital estimates, $28,002,000. Are we agreed?

Speaker: SOME HON. MEMBERS

Agreed.

Thank you, committee. Does committee agree that consideration of the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs is completed?

Speaker: SOME HON. MEMBERS

Agreed.

Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witness out of the Chamber.

Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we report progress.

Motion is on the floor to report the progress, the motion is in order and it's non-debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed?

---Carried

The motion is carried. I will now rise and report the progress.

Report of Committee of the Whole