I thank the Minister for that answer. It's good to hear that the corporation is learning as they move on for other projects. Can the Minister please advise this House: what has the Power Corporation learned from this project and how we can move forward with it?
The goal of the project was to validate the integration of solar with significant storage capacity and test the limits of integrating intermittent renewable energy sources. NTPC has contracted with a third party to complete a performance review of the hybrid plant at Colville Lake, to be completed at the end of March 2018. Once the study is complete, the design basis for a standard energy storage system will be completed for consideration and other NTPC thermal power plants.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to give some credit to the Power Corporation because, when the solar panels are working there, you can hear a pin drop in the community; it's that quiet. So it's very positive in that nature. When can we see the Power Corporation actually expand this project to other small communities, such as, Jean Marie or Kakisa? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Power Corporation supports the government's work on the 2030 Energy Strategy, and is looking forward to becoming a key partner in implementing a threeyear action plan that is currently under development. We understand that emerging renewable energy projects require additional financial support, and the GNWT is committed to covering the incremental costs of these investments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. The report on the Mineral Resources Act public engagement exercise is a "what we believe" document from ITI, rather than "what was said." Can the Minister explain why he promised that there would be more information made available from ITI's "crossjurisdictional reviews and expensive policy research," in this report, yet there's nothing on that subject in the document? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have moved into the legislative drafting process on the MRA, Mineral Resources Act. What we heard during the public engagement along with consideration of other key elements, the resulting of the scoping exercise across jurisdictional review on policy research, that is what we take now. It is going to guide us to help us develop the Mineral Resource Act. Because that specifically may not have been in the "what we heard" report doesn't mean we haven't taken those things into consideration.
Our policy rationale for the proposed act will be provided to standing committee as part of our legislative process. When we get there, we can explain that. As we enter the next phase of the legislative process, we are talking about necessary steps to ensure the role of standing committee and Cabinet as legislators are not fettered. We need to continue moving this forward. We need to be able to carry out the drafting policy development moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thanks to the Minister for that response. He promised to give more information on how this is dealt with in other jurisdictions in the report. It is not there. On October 19th, when he did appear before the standing committee, he promised there would be targeted public engagement on this report. Yesterday, he repeated that promise in the House. Can the Minister explain what this targeted engagement is and who is going to be consulted and when?
The public engagement plan was provided to standing committee and stated that the second round of engagement could occur based on the expression of interest of community and feedback that we have. In fact, this is already happening. We have already met with the Chamber of Mines. We have received the request to meet with Alternatives North and expect to meet with them also moving forward. We will also continue to meet with the Intergovernmental Council going forward with the drafting process.
Thanks again to the Minister for that. Unfortunately, the "what we heard" report doesn't even invite any further comments or public engagement. Glad to hear it is happening, though. It might just be advertised a little bit better. In the House yesterday, the Minister said that a review on mining revenues would not likely take place during this Assembly. It is my view ITI cannot be left in charge of this review due to its conflict of interest as mining promoter and the obvious regulatory capture that has taken place. Many other jurisdictions like Alberta have conducted independent reviews of economic rent from non-renewable resources. Will the Minister commit to an independent, evidence-based review of economic rent from mining, including taxes and royalties, during the life of this Assembly?
The Member knows he is asking a question that can't be answered. How can we know what we are losing out on if we don't know what the royalty regime will be in the future? We know that, as an interim, the mines will continue to provide jobs for residents in the Northwest Territories, business opportunities. They will continue to pay their fees and maintain their mineral tender, pay their land, tenure fees, royalties, property taxes, payroll taxes, and corporate taxes, as well as abiding by the socio-economic agreements and the IDAs that they have signed into.
Masi. Oral questions. Member from Frame Lake.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I don't think I actually heard a response to my question. I will try it again. I think he has leapt ahead to the next one I was going to ask. I was looking for a commitment from the Minister to an independent, evidence-based review of economic rent from mining, including taxes and royalties, during the life of this Assembly. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
As I stated in the House yesterday, we are not prepared to do that in the life of this Assembly. In our discussions with the Intergovernmental Council, we have made the decision to park this review of royalties moving forward until such time as the MRA is done and we will continue to move towards that. When we do come forward with the mineral resource royalties review, I can assure this House that we will have meaningful participation no different than what we have done on the MRA. We will have reached out to all the regions, all the stakeholders, all the residents of the Northwest Territories online, in person, what we need to do to make sure we get this Mineral Resource Act right and the royalties moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, earlier I was talking about the Arctic Policy Framework and that the federal government is replacing the Northern Strategy with the new Arctic Policy Framework. My questions today are for the Premier. While I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that there is work being done, I am a little bit concerned that the framework doesn't really align or isn't balanced with the territory's goal and objectives. I would like to start by asking the Premier: can the Premier, first of all, tell Northerners what our government is doing to guarantee that our needs are being met in the development of the Arctic Policy Framework? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The Honourable Premier.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the Arctic Policy Framework is a federal policy. There are no guarantees, because it will be developed by the federal government. Having said that, the federal government has seen fit, in their definition of "Arctic," to include not only Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories, but have also included Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec, Manitoba, and, of course, Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and the Metis National Council. As I said, this is the federal government.
Nonetheless, we are working very hard to include all sectors, all stakeholders, all governments in developing a Northwest Territories chapter. Obviously, the federal government will have the overarching document. There will be chapters for NWT, Nunavut, Yukon. There will be chapters for the three provinces. There will be chapters for AFN, ITK, and MNC.
We are holding round tables to ensure that we get as much input as possible. The only guarantee I wouldn't say is a guarantee. I wrote to the Prime Minister. He wrote back that he welcomed our input, that we will have our own NWT chapter, and if we didn't like what was written in a draft, he would be pleased to meet to talk about how we could improve the policy framework for the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you to the Premier for the details that he shared in the reply. Just for a little bit of clarification, I would like to ask the Premier: I recognize that we are undergoing efforts on our part to make a contribution to the chapter in the Arctic Policy Framework. I just want to get confirmation again from the Premier: are we consulting with Indigenous governments here in our territory for a contribution to that chapter?
As part of the overall framework, our government has the opportunity to develop a chapter. We have begun that process with a series of round tables with Indigenous governments, industry, and non-government organizations to identify key issues to include in the NWT chapter. I should point out that Indigenous governments certainly have other opportunities. The Inuit can have input into the ITK chapter. They have alliances with Nunavut, so they could have input in the Nunavut chapter. The federal government is holding parallel round tables throughout the North with the same people. They will be very well represented and have a lot of input into this document.
Thanks again to the Premier for his reply. Last year, at roundup, not the most recent one but the one before, the Premier along with our sister territories announced the Pan-Territorial Vision for Sustainable Development. Is it the Premier's position that the Government of the Northwest Territories, a significant part of our chapter in the Arctic Policy Framework will stem from the Pan-Territorial Vision for Sustainable Development?
As the Member knows, the Minister of Indigenous Affairs Canada appointed a Ministerial Special Representative to consult across northern Canada about the Arctic Policy Framework. Mary Simon was the MSR, and the three Northern Premiers felt that her report was too focused on conservation. I think it would be hard for us to find the words "sustainable development" any place in that report, and we felt that we needed to have some balance. The three Premiers of the three northern territories developed the PanTerritorial Vision for Sustainable Development that we submitted, and submitted it to the Prime Minister, and that is one aspect of it. In writing the chapter, as I said, we will be consulting across the territory, and this will provide input into the development of the Northwest Territories chapter.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Premier's reply. There have been some concerns, I suppose, that have been raised about the PanTerritorial Vision for Sustainable Development in the sense that some folks are concerned about the balance that it might have within itself.
I would just like to ask the Premier: as much as it does focus on economic development, and frankly, I agree that that is a focus that we need to have, does the Premier feel that our goals to diversify the economy, mitigate climate change, and educate our people will also be met within the PanTerritorial Vision for Sustainable Development? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We support balance, sustainable development, and we believe that with the PanTerritorial Vision for Sustainable Development, at least in the Northwest Territories chapter, we will have some balance between conservation and development. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Deh Cho.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had to think long and hard about what Minister is responsible for electricity in Kakisa. If we want to dial "E" for "energy," it is the Minister of Infrastructure who must answer the bell. I will start by asking him: who is responsible for innovative solutions to Kakisa's electricity problems? Earlier, I alluded to the frequent power outages. What funding is available for the necessary research? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you may know, Kakisa is one of the communities serviced by Northland Utilities. We do, however, have Kakisa in particular on our radar. One exciting potential project is the Fort Providence to Kakisa transmission line to connect diesel communities to the Taltson Renewable Hydro Project, and this proposed project is detailed in our draft energy strategy that is coming out. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is very encouraging to hear from the Minister that Kakisa is indeed on the radar. What is the Department of Infrastructure doing to help small communities develop more reliable and more sustainable options for generating electricity? Are they researching for useful community energy plans? Will the Minister commit to working with Kakisa on that?
We have a slate of potential energy solutions for communities across the Northwest Territories, including wind, solar, LNG, mini hydro. This will depend on the local energy resources potential of each community.
Under the 2030 Energy Strategy, we are committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from diesel communities by 25 per cent by 2030. Community energy plans are wellsuited for communityowned energy efficiency and renewable heating solutions, and under the energy strategy we are committed to supporting energy planning for communities that take this initiative.
The Minister's department has a lot of experience with pellet heating systems. Have his experts looked at the feasibility of a community heating system for Kakisa, and if so, what was the result?
This would likely require some study. There are a lot of factors that go into understanding the type of system that would be feasible in the community. Under the Energy Strategy Action Plan, the Government of the Northwest Territories will be launching an applicationbased government energy fund where communities can request funds to undertake this kind of initiative.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Deh Cho.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the needs of small communities lack detail and emphasis in developing an energy strategy for the NWT. Will the Minister please explain how the territorial energy strategy will address the needs I have identified for Kakisa, for example, the frequent power outages, and, I am sure, other communities as well? Mahsi.
The 2030 Energy Strategy that we will be tabling, in fact, revolves around community needs. I think five out of the six points that we have in there are around communities and supporting communities and community residents, and the Government of the Northwest Territories, as well as the Arctic Energy Alliance, are in line to well support communities when it comes to sustainable energy solutions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. As I mentioned in my statement, the NWT Child Benefit is not helpful to the lowincome family of four that we surveyed for our living wage calculation. Their income, which is for the two of them for the year, $92,518, qualifies them for just $14 a year from the NWT Child Benefit, but the intention of this benefit, the Minister told us, is to help working families with their expenses. My question is: will the Minister revisit and revise the income threshold for the NWT Child Benefit? Mahsi.
Masi. Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and as the Member has mentioned, it is not only the NWT Child Benefit that we made improvements to and changes to with our income assistance benefits that exempted income intended to help with the costs of raising children, but we also looked at the child support payments. That was further to the work that we did with the Canada Child Benefit, and we made changes there.
I can assure the Member that any individuals and families in the Northwest Territories who are unable to meet their basic financial needs can also access assistance through GNWT social programming, and we offer those programs to the families. Seeing that this is still new, we are still going to have to look at doing the report and looking at monitoring this program moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Minister for his response, but I believe he has missed point of the living wage. The point of the living wage is that people work fulltime to take care of themselves and their families out of their employment income. They don't need food banks. They don't need public housing. They need to earn a decent wage so that they can pay their way.
To that end, the NWT Child Benefit could be very helpful to working families. That is the reason that I am interested in knowing whether the Minister will look at revising the income threshold to make it more useful to low-income families.
The Member mentioned the living wage. The living wage reflects what earners need to bring home to live an acceptable quality of life. I just want to inform Members and the public that there is no jurisdiction in Canada currently that has legislated a living wage as part of its minimum wage policy.
As a government, collectively with Housing, Health, my Department of Education, Culture and Employment, we do provide a lot of services to help low- to modestincome families, and we continue to look at doing those supports. As I mentioned, we are really in our first year of the NWT Child Benefit. I will go back to the department and have those discussions in terms of how the evaluation of the NWT Child Benefit was in its first year, and we have not had a complete first year yet.
I appreciate the Minister's willingness to go back and look. For what it is worth, the income threshold is also too low for the Canada Child Benefit. Mr. Speaker, the point of the living wage is not to ask government to legislate the living wage, but rather it is to encourage employers to see the benefits for themselves of paying a living wage in order to recruit and retain and encourage greater productivity from their work force. We are not looking for legislation of the living wage.
I want to talk about how the cost of living has been gone up in the last two years; 5 per cent each for shelter and childcare, 6 per cent for food. Is there any thought about indexing this benefit to inflation?
Setting minimum wage to increase with inflation could limit our ability to explore other options for adjusting the minimum wage rate. We do have a Minimum Wage Committee that does a lot of work on behalf of the government and brings back options. They do that every two years. As you know, NWT CTR rates are based on Yellowknife. If there were any links to that, it would adversely affect some of our more northern and more isolated communities that do even have a higher cost of living, if we looked at doing something with that as it is based on costs here in Yellowknife.
