Yes, we have done some preliminary investigation regarding the potential alternate landing site that the Member is talking about. It could extend the ferry service up to a month, depending on the weather and the water levels. There are some challenges still with this option. I think we have talked about this in the House before.
The ferry crossing would be 11 kilometres along the Mackenzie Valley River and take an hour-and-a-half compared to the seven-minute crossing at the present site, where it's located right now, on the Liard River.
Of course, with that, if we are going to do 11-kilometre and a one-and-a-half-hour ferry ride, there are additional costs of operating these things. The initial number that I have, looking at doing this, the preliminary cost would be a $16-million ask to do that, not counting ongoing operational costs. That would be more for the longer ferry service and the additional maintenance of the highway.
I thank the Minister for that answer. I appreciate the department looking at that.
In our other conversations, we also talked about moving the landing upstream, which is, you know, a kilometre up, which would access deeper water and ensure better service to the residents from Fort Simpson. Has the Minister and the department looked at this option and done a cost analysis, as well?
Yes, we have looked at this option, as well. The ferry most often shuts down during this season, like at the end of the year, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. It's due to heavy ice flow or low water. It's usually heavy ice flow. Moving it up river I don't think is going to be able to extend the season. It's not likely.
We also did a preliminary cost structure on this, too, and that is going to cost an extra $3.2 million if we were to look at that option. The other thing that we would have look at if we actually did that option would be land acquisition, land use permits, potential water licensing, and landing construction. Moving it upstream, I think, for something that would benefit the mid-season is not really a benefit. I don't think that would be a viable option, as well.
I thank the Minister for that answer. It actually comes down to the million-dollar question: has the department looked at actually building a bridge across the Liard River? We are talking about Mackenzie Valley Highway. We are doing a bridge up at the Great Bear River. Has the department looked at building a bridge or a floating bridge, similar to what there is in BC, using the two islands in the river? Have they done a cost analysis of that?
A bridge could possibly be a priority across the Liard River, but not at this point. As all Members know, we are pushing the envelope here on infrastructure funding to try to complete the Mackenzie Valley Highway. I believe that is our priority right now. Based on our mandate, that is what we are working on.
There would be some challenges, though, with having a floating bridge, I think, because of the fluctuation of the water that we see, particularly on the Liard because it is tied to the BC mountains. We can certainly have a look at that sometime, but, right now, that is not a priority of this government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think everybody has a dream of owning their own home and building a home, but a house needs a critical aspect of making a long-term home, and that is land. My question is to the Minister of Lands. What steps has the Minister of Lands taken to identify and make land available for residents of the Northwest Territories? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Lands.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The department does encourage community governments to apply for and obtain land within the communities where there is a demonstrated need to support future expansion and development of their communities.
Now, much of this land is unsurveyed, so, once we recognize a need for the land, we would have to in many cases have it surveyed. There is a way in which community governments in particular can apply to the government and obtain land within the community.
Once again, having a home of course is the biggest investment that a person will undertake in their lives. At the same time, it is also an investment in the community, but, in some communities, there is no land.
Can the Minister commit to working closely with communities to open up larger areas of land for development, in an effort to step away from piecemeal development and towards a more holistic approach?
As I mentioned, we do encourage community governments to apply for and gain title to lands, and often the proven needs or the needs of the community are identified through community plans. Communities need to develop community plans, and then applications can be made, of course, to Lands. That would be the process to obtain more land within the communities that would be available to the general population.
I know that, under section 9 of the Commissioner's Land Regulations, "No interest in Commissioner's land shall be sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of unless the deputy Minister is satisfied that the applicant for the land has discharged the obligations and performed the covenants and agreements that are required of him or her before the sale, lease, or other disposal; the land is no larger in area than is reasonable for the purpose for which the land is required; and the sale or lease is fair and equitable in accordance with the public interest."
There is no general policy to turn over all Commissioner's land within the communities to the communities, but certainly we would be interested in working with the communities and in receiving applications.
The Minister stated two interesting streams of a process that communities would undertake: one, for the purposes of residential interest, people could apply for land; and, also, the other process is a commercial interest in communities. What is the difference between the two processes, and are they basically the same?
As mentioned earlier, the proven need for land must be established, first of all. As to whether the process is different for commercial, industrial, or residential land, I will have to look into that and get back to the Member.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister commit to working with MACA to review community plans and zoning bylaws together to ensure smoother land transfer to communities by eliminating additional process layers? Mahsi.
Yes, of course, we would be very pleased to work with MACA to make this process move more smoothly, and, certainly, we do recognize that there is a need for land in the communities. I have heard that, not only from the Member who has asked the question but from another Member opposite. Thank you.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. My questions are for the Minister of Infrastructure. I fully understand that the federal government sets guidelines for its infrastructure programs. My concern is with the lack of transparency on what our government submits. Is there a general call put out to departments? It is just not clear to me.
Can the Minister explain how his department and Cabinet as a whole determines how and what projects are developed, reviewed, and approved for submission by this government for federal infrastructure funding? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When Infrastructure was putting forward our requests for federal dollars for the bilaterals we signed, along with all of the other sources of funding that we are trying to secure, the first thing we did is we checked the mandate. That is the first thing we have done. We checked the mandate and identified the priorities that were within the mandate. We have looked at the 20-year capital-needs assessment and the annual capital-planning process.
That is the process, we have done that, and then, when we do that, we also have to look at the alignment of objectives and outcomes that the federal government has laid out, the eligibility criteria that they establish for this federal funding. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the Minister for that. It sounds like the mandate, the 20-year capital plan, is driving what we submit, but I had hoped to hear that there were some other kinds of rigorous analyses around the number of jobs that would be created, greenhouse gas reductions, regional distribution, and a balance between physical and social infrastructure. If the Minister has these criteria that he and his Cabinet colleagues use internally, can he share those with this side of the House?
I can certainly check with the department for exactly what we used and share that with the Member.
I would like to thank the Minister for that commitment. As I said, I hoped that the criteria would include things like the number of jobs likely to be created, greenhouse gas reductions, regional distribution, and balance between physical and social infrastructure.
The Minister has committed to share whatever criteria he has developed with our side of the House. How does he intend to share those criteria with the public?
I will have to check with the department to see exactly how we could do that, and I can certainly get back to the Member.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. A few commitments out of the Minister here today. I appreciate that.
I talked earlier today about how, on the Infrastructure Canada website, it shows that 79 per cent of our federal infrastructure dollars since 2002 have been spent on roads and highways. This has led to a big imbalance. I have referred to this as the "big toys for big boys" approach.
Can the Minister explain this imbalance and how he will work to ensure that more social infrastructure projects make it through Cabinet's processes and into GNWT submissions for federal infrastructure funding? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
You know, we have had a lot of discussions in this House about where infrastructure money should go, and a lot of people believe that it should go to education, health, and housing infrastructure.
When we go down to these meetings with our federal colleagues and provincial and territorial colleagues, the criteria is clearly laid out. The federal government has said that our bilaterals are for green infrastructure; public transit; social infrastructure, which is community, culture, and recreational bilateral; rural northern communities; and Arctic Energy Fund. That is the criteria that I have to work with.
When my fellow colleagues go down, they have to lobby for their own pots of money, be it health, the ones I just laid out, and there are federal engagements on those, and they have their own pots of money.
A lot of people, and particularly this Member, thinks that there is a lot of money in this program for social infrastructure, and there isn't. The criteria is clearly laid out by the federal government. We had to line up, as I said, our mandate, our 20-year capital needs, the priorities of this Legislative Assembly, and work with the criteria the federal government gives us to try to access these dollars.
Now, I'm not saying that we don't go down there and argue for some stuff. We are continually down there trying to fight for every dollar we can get, and, thankfully to Minister Sohi when we signed our bilateral, between myself and the finance minister, he clearly listened to us that we don't want it on a per capita basis. We want it base-funding plus, and he did that. We got more money than the Yukon, Nunavut, and PEI. We did very well on our bilaterals, but there seems to be this notion that we can just take these pots of money, there's $570 million, and spread it around the Northwest Territories where we want, and we can't. That’s not how this program works. We have to work within what they have laid out, and we will continue to do that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Marsi cho, Mr. Speaker. On my Member's statement, I talked about the impacts of alcohol in the small communities, or I guess impacts of alcohol in all our communities. You probably know the answer to this, but I'm going to ask the Minister of Finance if he could look at the possibility of reinvesting some profits directly into the issues of the impacts of alcohol in the communities. Thank you.
Masi. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the Member that alcohol is a widespread program all across the Northwest Territories, all walks of life, and I believe it is something that we need to continually battle. It has affected probably everybody in this building, and I'm sure most families in the Northwest Territories have been affected and are still being affected by alcohol.
Having said that, the money that we get from alcohol sale goes into general revenue, and that money that is in general revenue is then used to deliver a lot of the programs across the Northwest Territories, including those that are specifically designed for mental health and addictions.
One of the key issues in the communities is bootlegging. I know that the government put some money into general revenues, and then, this rolled out. I know that the social envelope gets their fair share, but I'm not sure that there is anything that is in there at all in all of government that directly combats bootlegging.
I'd like to ask the Minister if there is any possibility that there could just be a pot of money that comes from the sale of alcohol hearing what he just said, but if they could reconsider this and put something directly into combatting bootlegging?
The Member is correct. Bootlegging is widespread across the Northwest Territories, unfortunately. We would not like to see that, but it is a fact of life. I think the law enforcement have been doing a good job in trying to crack down on some of the illegal bootlegging or the illegal sale of alcohol. I think we see it quite regularly in the news now, the fact that they are posting pictures of alcohol that they have seized. That's a good start, and I think there are more people that are speaking up about those that are bringing in alcohol, and that is needed, those that bootleg alcohol, if we have people willing to come forward and testify against those. As the Member said, a lot of small communities, I mean we are a small jurisdiction, you know who the bootleggers are in each community, and unfortunately, without those coming forward to testify against them, then they continue to operate.
As far as identifying a set amount of money to combat that one particular issue, again I go back to the fact that money goes into general revenue. I suppose it is a discussion that we could have with committee, and, if it's something that they feel quite strongly about, I can't guarantee that it's going to happen, but we need to start the discussion somewhere.
I'd like to ask the Minister, just along the same lines, a little bit of difference: is there a possibility that, without any prohibition or anything, that the government or the liquor stores themselves can set a restriction on the amount of alcohol an individual can purchase in one day?
My understanding is, going back in history, that it has been tried in a few communities. They tried to restrict the sale of alcohol, but it didn't work out. I think that was just more of a business opportunity for bootleggers because I think they did quite well off of this. They went back to non-restricted sales.
Again, we would have to have a conversation with the liquor stores. We would have to hear from the communities. I know people in the territories have very strong opinions on alcohol and the effects of alcohol in the community, and we've all seen it firsthand, and we've seen a lot of people that have sobered up, and they are doing quite well for themselves. Some of those folks are the biggest opponents of alcohol sales. We would have to have a discussion and see if we are able to work with restrictions. I do know it has been tried before, but it was very beneficial to those that bootleg.
Oral questions. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I don't have the answer, either, and I don't think anyone does. It is next to impossible to get somebody to buy alcohol off a bootlegger then see the whole thing through to court. Therefore, people just don't engage in that. Like the Minister said, small town, no one wants to be seen as the person that is blowing the whistle on bootleggers, even though no one likes them.
Is there a possibility, then, that, not in communities, where you would restrict alcohol? I recognize that some of those things in the past have failed, but where the liquor stores themselves set their own restrictions, if they know there is a bootlegger coming in every day to buy booze, is there a way that the liquor store can or the government can work with the liquor stores to prevent that from happening? The restrictions could be well within the needs of anyone in the Northwest Territories, but it would not be well within the needs of what the bootlegger needs to continue to operate. I would just like to ask the Minister: is there anything there, at all, that can be done by the government? Thank you.
This is a topic that needs more investigation. As the Member is aware, a lot of these people that bootleg wouldn't actually go into the liquor store to buy the alcohol themselves. They would use, and the word is "use," other people to go to buy the alcohol for them, which takes some of the pressure off of them. They have ways that they work around it, and I think restrictions have been tried before. If there was a known bootlegger that came in, again, we would have to have a look at this because I can't stand here right now and say, yes, we're going to do it. I'm just pointing out reality is that they use a lot of different people to go to get their supply for them, and then they sell it. It is something that is widespread. It is widespread, and it is something that we would not like to see happen, and we would like more people to stand up and take a stand against this. Good on some of the folks in the community that battle alcohol, and the effects it has on the communities. All the power to them. If there is any support that we can provide them, it is something that this government should consider. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I spoke about the Thaidene Nene and the critical path towards finalizing the establishment of that unique park. My questions today are for the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources. We have, as you know, three main participants taking place in the establishment of that park, Lutselk'e Dene First Nation, Parks Canada, and of course ourselves. There are a lot of, I will call them, milestones and obligations that we have to meet in order to establish this park. I would just like to ask the Minister: can he advise if the Government of the Northwest Territories has in fact fulfilled all its commitments to make the park a reality?
I'm not talking necessarily about the protected area strategy. I'm talking about all the other benchmarks and commitments that we have to meet as a territorial government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the establishment of TDN does remain a priority of the GNWT and a mandate for the Department of ENR. Regarding TDN establishment, we are in active negotiations with Lutselk'e, other Indigenous governments, as part of Parks Canada. All the negotiations are proceeding in a timely fashion. We are hopeful that all agreements will be signed off in 2019, prior to the end of the life of the 18th Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to be hopeful, too, and I really appreciate the Minister's reply. Certainly, we do want to meet this mandate obligation. It is of the utmost highest priority.
Mr. Speaker, we just recently had a presentation from LKDFN with regard to Thaidene Nene. In there, they estimated that there could be up to 18 jobs for the Lutselk'e Dene First Nation, most of which, it seems like most of which, would be tied to the conservation economy. I'm just wondering: can the Minister let us know, aside from those 18, are there specific jobs that might be tied directly to the GNWT? If so, what are those and how many would there be? How many are we anticipating?
Mr. Speaker, this is a possibility. Once TDN is established, a management plan will be developed, which will better inform the staff complement for the protected areas. I wouldn't be able to tell the Member right now how many jobs that we are hoping to create out of this or planning to create out of this. Once the management plan is developed, then we will have a better understanding of the number of jobs and the types of jobs that are going to be available.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister talked earlier that we are hopeful in terms of meeting all of our obligations to establish this park in the life of this Assembly. Can the Minister maybe provide a little bit more detail and maybe speak a little bit more to specific timelines and what, maybe, the next steps might be?
Mr. Speaker, the negotiations are ongoing. The negotiations will conclude with the signing of the land transfer agreement with Parks Canada as well as other agreements with IGOs as required. The GNWT, now this is a different word, is "confident," instead of "hopeful" is confident, that these agreements will be concluded within the life of the 18th Legislative Assembly.
