Thank you, Deputy Minister. Mr. Simpson.
Thank you. In terms of the cost-of-living offset, how is that breaking down? How much is going to be allocated per person, and does it matter if you are a couple, if you are a child? Could I get some details on that? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Deputy Minister Stewart.
Again, I will confirm these dollar values, but it is on a per-person basis. If you have more people in the household, obviously, the value will be higher. If I recall correctly, the value was $260 annually for people who are 18 and over, and $300 for children under the age of 18, dollars a tonne. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, deputy minister. Mr. Simpson.
Thank you. $280 for adults and $300 for children in the household. How come there is that disparity between children and adults? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Deputy minister.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. In the initial design of the program, the assumption was that there were certain things that were going to be more heavily impacted, that would hit families more than it would hit, necessarily, people without children. The decision was made to make it slightly larger for children than it would be for adults, and therefore families would end up, on a per-person basis, with a little higher amounts. That was the original design that was done around the carbon tax cost-of-living offset. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, deputy minister. Mr. Simpson.
Thank you. Were there any dissenting opinions from members of the department who don't have children on that division? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Deputy minister.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. There were certainly lots of views, not only from people in the department, but when we released the approach to the public, as to whether there should be more that goes to families, whether it should be income-tested, and a variety of other things. Yes, there were different views, depending, probably, on their own family situation, but also recognizing what we were trying to do, which is really offset the impact of the carbon pricing as opposed to any other objectives that might be out there. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, deputy minister. Mr. Simpson.
Thank you. I understand that the federal backstop, as it is called, the federal carbon pricing plan, considered rebates for small businesses, as well, and I think that they are working on the details of that. Those might be grants to upgrade the efficiency of their buildings or equipment. I am not quite sure. I don't even know if that plan has been released yet. I see that there are large-emitter plans. There are plans to offset electricity generation in communities. There are plans to give money directly to people. Are there any plans to help small businesses cope with this carbon tax? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Deputy Minister Stewart.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Probably the two biggest drivers for small business that will be provided offsets is 100 percent of the heating fuel carbon tax is being rebated back to the user, whether it is a resident or it is a small business, and then electricity generation, as well. We are not charging carbon tax on electricity generation using diesel fuel. There are also other programs that are being looked at under the Low Carbon Economy Fund, I believe, that will help businesses in terms of some of the things that they may want to do to help reduce their consumption. I know that that work is ongoing with the federal government, but I know that there is a component of it that is intended to help small business, as well, under that program. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, deputy minister. Mr. Simpson.
Thank you. The department might want to advertise that fact, and maybe it is the Department of Infrastructure who has to, because the way that this is seen is that it is just another tax on small businesses because they are not getting a cheque in the mail the same that a family is going to. I am sure that the department is going to say, "Well, they'll just raise their prices and recoup that loss," but it is a tight market out there right now. That is not going to be received well by consumers. When businesses are struggling in this economy, the last thing that they need is another tax on them. I have no further questions on this section. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I can, I am going to take a moment to go back to the Heritage Fund, just because I think that we need a little bit more clarity on what steps the government has taken. I think that I am seeing it differently than my previous colleague from Frame Lake has. I recognize, also, that I am a member of the Board of Management, and we have a fiduciary responsibility every year to manage the pension plan of past, current, and future members. If I am understanding this correctly, I think that this is the intention of what we are doing here in terms of going out to the third party. I would like to ask the Minister of the department: is this, in fact, an RFP that has gone out to actually seek investment fund managers? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is correct.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Really, what we are doing is we are trying to seek out some expertise that we clearly don't have in-house. Right now, again, you can correct me in a moment if I am wrong, but our money is just simply sitting in a fund, not allocated to any kind of investment portfolio and not generating any kind of interest. It is my understanding that we are going to seek investment expertise to spread this fund around in some form of investment portfolio, with the intention of generating additional profits or revenues to the fund. Is that correct? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kalgutkar.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is exactly right. Currently the fund is sitting in investments that are earning less than 1 percent a year, and the intent was that, when the fund got to a balance where it made sense to have a third-party advisor looking after the funds, we were always intending to do that. This was raised by MLAs several times in the past. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Will the fiduciary oversight still remain with the government? I know, for example, again, the Board of Management is the oversight for fiduciary responsibility on the pension, even though we have actuaries who manage the fund. Will this agreement with the third party make sure that all fiduciary responsibility and decision-making remains with the government? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Kalgutkar.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is correct. The overall operation of the fund will not change, other than the general mix of investments might change. There will be an annual report. There will be audited financial statements that will be signed and audited by the OAG. The whole responsibility that the Member is referring to will not change. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, and I think that I just got the answer to my last question, which was going to be: will this be audited on an annual basis, and will we see annual reports that will get tabled in the House? Just for confirmation, maybe we will get the Minister to answer that question. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
I apologize, Mr. Chair. Yes.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you. That is all I have on that particular item, but I have a few minutes left here. I would like to move over to line item Mackenzie Valley Fibre Link on page 151. Can we get clarification as to the significant increase from $7,643,000 in the 2017-2018 actuals to the now almost $14 million from the 2018-2019 and the 2019-2020? Where are these funds allocated to? What is this going toward? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Who am I directing this question to? Mr. Kalgutkar.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you look at the 2017-2018 actuals column, if you look at the block of numbers that say expenditure category, there is an amount that says $5.3 million for interest. As part of the 2017-2018 actuals, that $5.3 million is part of the $8.9 million that is under the deputy secretary of the financial management board, but in error. So, if you pull out that $5.3 million now allocated to the $7.6 million, you will get a comparison to the rest of the fiscal years. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
All right, and so the question, however, then becomes: where is this nearly $14 million being dispensed to? I mean, I can't see a description as to the allocation of the $14 million. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Kalgutkar.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The allocation is made up in several areas. The biggest tranche of money is paid to the Northern Lights Fibre Consortium for the debt-servicing payments and the annual maintenance that they do on the fibre line. That amounts to about $11 million per year. Then there are land access fees that we pay to the Gwich'in and to the Sahtu, which is about $2.6 million, and that makes up the balance of the majority of the $14 million. There is also some environmental monitoring that we have to do, but the big portion of the cost are those two areas. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe, without having to go look and if one of the Minister's colleagues has the answer at the top of their head, what form or how much generation of revenue do we, if at all, generate for our government off of the Mackenzie Valley fibre optic line? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding is it's about $1.2 million for this fiscal year.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Okay. The reason why I raise this, Mr. Chair, is because I appreciate that we are not experts in certain fields and we need to hire and form agreements. We just talked about that, in fact, over here as it related to the Heritage Fund, about getting experts to manage certain things. That said, though, when I look at other jurisdictions that are responsible for their information super-highways, Alberta is a good example. The Government of Alberta maintenance ownership over that asset and then might have a small contractor managing the technical aspects of it, but they get to generate significant revenue off of it by leasing, for lack of knowing the technical term, but essentially "leasing space out" to those who have an interest in accessing the information highway. I think that it would have been an excellent opportunity for us in the arrangement that we made with regard to this fibre optic line to find a way in which this could have ended up being a much larger revenue generator for us as a government. It seems to me that, clearly, we are paying an abundance of money to a manager, and yet we are making very little on the other end in terms of revenue. So how long do we have this agreement in place, and is there a future opportunity to renegotiate a financial situation that is going to be more beneficial to northern ratepayers? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The agreement is for 20 years. This was a P3 partnership, and so we are paying fees on that, and we make $1.2 million. As far as renegotiating, I am not sure if there is an opportunity to renegotiate. Maybe I will go to our fibre-line expert through you, Mr. Chair.
