Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, perhaps we could burn reusable diesel renewable diesel, or other forms of bio diesel. There are so many options out there right now. Okay, that's good.
I'm concerned, though, that there are still some issues with, like, our local power grid. I know my colleague, the Member for Yellowknife Centre, has brought this up but Naka, the newly rechristened Naka utilities has basically tells consumers they have to pay for their own infrastructure when they want to have high capacity or high fast charging for EVs in their garages, things like that. Our power system's not attuned for that. So how are we I don't think that's fair. I don't think anyone thinks that's fair. So how are we assisting consumers to get those tools and those utilities into their homes, so they are not left footing the bill for their entire neighbourhoods? Thank you.
Thank you, Member for Range Lake. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly can't speak to the practices or policies of Naka Power. I can say with respect to, again, you know, if folks are having to make changes to their own home renovations, you know, that's not necessarily something that we would be in a position to subsidize. There are certainly going to be some distribution challenges. If people are trying to get an EV charging station in their home because you have to go and from different step downs of power but, you know, again, how to best support that, our response has been to make available EV charging stations in communities from here Behchoko, Fort Providence, Enterprise, Hay River, Fort Smith and then at the junction as well. If folks are making decisions for their own home needs or home use, again, that's, at this point, not necessarily the focus or the thrust of subsidization with public dollars. But as stations are becoming available in those communities and along the highway, hopefully with greater command comes a reduction in the costs. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for the Sahtu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I'm glad there's some willingness to reinstate the community access program. I've seen firsthand a lot of growth in that area. And for me, coming from and going to small communities, it's really comforting to see the value on TPR. So TPR would be your taxpayers return of public funds. So when I see it in the book here and I go out to the community and I see it out there, okay, it's happening. And it makes me feel good that the government is doing something right by providing meaningful benefits.
And looking at the business plan, the business plan on page 175 in our mandate is compliant to, say, building relationships with Indigenous groups and partners on major projects. And when I see some of these let's call it the in-value capital projects. So when I go downtown Tulita and I look at the solar panel and I think of the millions of dollars that was spent on this piece of infrastructure in terms of the piling put in there and the gravel hauled there and the solar panel itself, the mounting stations, and I wonder are we seeing a return on that? Are we seeing some sort of benefit? If we can measure the benefits compared to maximizing other programs that this money can go towards.
So when I look at the keeping that in mind, I just hope that priority is given to applications as we move throughout the year on this fiscal budget that more meaningful programs would be looked at favourably, not just another capital asset that ain't going to prove any benefits. We can say okay, yes, it is providing a benefit, there's cost reductions on the energy rates going to the clients of Tulita. Then I can say, yes, it's working. But I yet have to hear of any benefits of that capital cost. Maybe that money could be better directed to other energy saving initiatives, the Arctic Energy Alliance subsidizing NWT energy efficient projects.
Are there any carryovers from the whole area of the bilateral agreements that exist today into this budget? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for the Sahtu. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just want to make sure I was clear. Carryovers reflected on capital projects in here? There wouldn't be. This would be only the operations. So there wouldn't be any carryovers reflected here. I'll just stop there. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for the Sahtu.
Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll use one example. The 18th Assembly signed a bilateral agreement with the federal government for $570 million payable over ten years. Is that reflected or I guess, first of all, is there any money left in that bilateral agreement? If so, is it going to be identified and entered into these statements? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for the Sahtu. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So Madam Chair, that sounds to me like that is likely in relation to Mackenzie Valley Highway or one of the associated projects, Great Bear River Bridge for instance. So if that is the case, then that would not be reflected in certainly not in this particular instance. Or on this particular page, sorry. It would yeah, it would come in under the capital planning process for any any of the large-scale funding for large scale capital projects will be in there. The smaller scale programs that are here aren't subject to the same sort of carryover process. They typically are one year at a time funded. And, I mean, that was sometimes some of the challenges of those small-scale projects is still getting the permitting in place and to get them done in a year. But yes, thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for the Sahtu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe I'll rephrase that. As I mentioned, there was I'm just using that one example. There are several bilateral agreements that I'm I'm still doing my research, but it's in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion that exists with these bilaterals. I don't know whether it's five bilateral agreements specific to the target of the application applied for. In this case, I'm just using the 570 bilateral payable over ten years. That'll be $55 million or $57 million per year. And that was signed in 2018, I believe, or 2019. So there should be some existing capital in these bilaterals, but I have no idea how many bilateral agreements exist to this day. I've requested that information to try to comprehend and see how we are going to position ourself moving forward. So can the Minister tell me how many bilateral agreements are out there between the federal government and the territorial government? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for the Sahtu. Infrastructure Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Madam Chair, there's there are quite a number of capital funding federal pots that exist right now that we are part of. The Disaster Mitigation Adaption Fund is one. Investing in Canada Infrastructure Project, people I think hear us sometimes say ICIP. That's a big one. And that, I think, may be the one that the Member was has the numbers there for 570. I think it's actually closer to 580, but that's Canada's portion. And that is right now funding quite a large number of projects, including projects in the Sahtu region, as well as the National Trade Corridors Fund. That's another big one. And finally, although this one, I think, is coming to a close soon, the New Building Canada Plan.There's certainly some new programs that are coming online as well. So REACH, for instance, is an area with respect to transmission technology and transmission line work that is coming in. That's a new one that we now are participating with the federal government on for electricity transmission. Those are all the ones that I have in front of me. If I've missed any, I would certainly be happy to get back to the Members. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for the Sahtu.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to the Minister for that. I think if we can work in collaboration with each other, we can or everybody in the Assembly. If we can put our heads together, I think we can face the challenges that are out there. It's so significant, it's unbelievable. I'm actually scared personally for some of the communities on the resupply. As we all know on the publications through social media and, in reality, going to Fort Providence and witnessing the low waters. And I'm afraid that we still have anticipation on resupplying Fort Good Hope, but I'm not confident that our ships will pass Little Chicago.
Little Chicago is swamped with sandbars, and one of the ships stopped there or got stuck last year. So I don't think we can afford to jeopardize our fuel and cargo resupply with the assumption that we are still going to go on that river. So I think we should prepare financially for the worst, and if this includes looking at the existing bilateral agreements that exist and incorporating into the budget to support these programs and pursue the intent and terms and conditions of the bilateral agreement itself, I think we can be further ahead in accomplishing both reductions and capitalization from existing agreements. So I point that out now, and I'll probably have further questions in other areas. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for the Sahtu. There was no question there. I didn't hear any question there. So unless the Minister wants to respond.
Madam Chair, just to note, I think I realize now. When there's these large funding pots, when they are already committed to capital projects, they'll show up in the capital budget. Sometimes you'll see them coming in under the operations budget but not when they're already tied to the capital projects. And but still happy to draw that distinction here. It's a people don't necessarily wouldn't outside this Assembly wouldn't understand the division, so I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So on page 7 or sorry, 272 I need new glasses the line item for Arctic Energy Alliance, can you confirm that's a transfer for their O and M operating budget? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a contribution agreement with them. In terms of the exact usage or specifics, I don't I mean, there's a number of things they deliver on our behalf. So thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks for that clarification. I guess my followup question would be that number has remained static, and I understand a little bit of static throughout time before what's actually reflected on this page for several years now, and I notice too that it's going down by about $112,000. Can the Minister speak to why that is. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Great Slave. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the Arctic Energy Alliance is one area where we were looking at what options there might have been for some reductions in line with other opportunities looking for reductions in other programs and projects, and this is one there has been a slight reduction as a result of that review. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I recognize that. I recognize we're in fiscal sustainability. And, you know, it's just it's unfortunate to hear that we're reducing funding to such a well loved and well subscribed program. I realize they operate arm's length from the government. They do rely quite heavily on the pieces the GNWT funnels their way. So more of a comment than a question, but, I guess, I just I would like to if the Minister would be so kind as to elaborate to what she sees is the value for our investment on Arctic energy. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Great Slave. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify the point there that this was targeted for a very and you can see from the number a fairly specific reduction, and it was reflective of an operator surplus that was seen to exist, and it doesn't reflect on, you know, the fact that there is good work that is being done, but if there is an operating surplus in an organization that is a nonprofit, it considers an opportunity in the course of this obviously bigger bigger concern around the ability of the government to continue to deliver all of the programs, including energy programs, of what we could do. So it was really related to an operating surplus and not an intention to take away. But, again, yes, I mean, the value it provides, well, I mean, it does, as I say, quite a large number of activities, everything from providing incentives directly to residents for various energy renewal systems or efficiency systems to education around Arctic renewable and GHG reductions and climate adaptation to providing energy efficiency analysis and so on and so forth. So we're certainly I'm certainly happy that it continues to exist, even without a surplus. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for Frame Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I just wanted to I think perhaps repeat a question. Just starting with Arctic Energy Alliance, just it's being reduced by $104,000. That's the operating surplus? Is that the answer to that question? Okay. I'll just move on.
The low income program to address energy poverty, that one sounds interesting. I don't know much about that one. Can the Minister or staff describe what that program is for, what it does.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, let me turn that one to Amy Burt, please.
Ms. Burt.
Madam Chair, that's to help lower income households reduce energy costs.
Thank you, director of Infrastructure. Member for Frame Lake.
Thank you for the answer. I was maybe hoping for a little bit more information on what that really means. What does the program do? What, does it provide people cash; does it provide people rebates to replace heating systems in their homes; what are we doing with the $200,000?
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It does have a program to support folks with wood stoves or wood stove replacements. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for Frame Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So that one, I mean, the issue I want to highlight is I've got a lot of constituents who are effectively, you know, on an older oil burning furnace paying exorbitant amounts of heating costs, aren't in a position where they can afford to switch to something more high efficiency or off of oil altogether to get out from under carbon tax payments, etcetera, etcetera, and just the general cost of oil. So I'm just wondering is this program geared towards that? It's only $200,000. I mean, personally, I'd love to see us providing a lot more support for people on this, just recognizing, you know, we're collecting a fair bit of money related to the carbon tax. The government hasn't entirely accounted for where all that money's going, and I think this is something that could be expanded. I think it would be a great program. I know it's something that a lot of people would be able to subscribe to if they were given assistance to upgrade their heating systems and make their homes a little more energy efficient. So I'd be I guess I'm really just encouraging the Minister on that one, but maybe if I could get a response on that.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we are right now spending what we're I mean, in terms of talking about energy savings and energy rebates, the Government of the Northwest Territories spends almost $8 million a year in terms of supporting territorial support, power supports. There's several million dollars a year that goes to seniors' home heating subsidies. There's $30 million a year that we've put to keep power rates low just recently, notwithstanding others. So I mean, I don't disagree that getting folks to a position where they're not as reliant on diesel is certainly one that, I think, we all share. But getting there, you know, in bits and pieces is hopefully not what we're going to have to do and hopefully we can do so on a much larger scale. I don't yet have actuals for this program, and it's one that to the extent that it's run through Arctic Energy Alliance, I would have to see where those actuals are at. Is this money getting out the door? Is it getting out to those that need it? Where is it going? Again, because it's administrated by a third party, and I have confidence that they're trying their best to get it out the door, but I don't have that information so I just can't speak to the degree or extent to which it's effective. I hope it is. I share the Member's concern. You know, if it's fully subscribed, then certainly then I welcome an opportunity to have a look at whether it's something that we do think has value. If it's not fully subscribed, then we want to look at, in the course of fiscal sustainability, if this is the right place to put public dollars. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for Frame Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That's definitely something I want to dig into a little deeper in the future.
Moving to the low carbon economy leadership fund, or the LCELF I think we're calling it, I won't reiterate comments made by the other Members, but what I would like is an update from the Minister. I know there's kind of active negotiations and discussions going on with the feds. I'm wondering if there's any updates on that. I do want to encourage the Minister to really pursue this one. It's one that a lot of people are benefitting from in helping us kind of move in the direction of our climate goals. So I was hoping to get an update from the Minister on how we're doing securing that large amount of funding. Just, I see a huge reduction between our grants and is contributions and transfers between 20232024 and this year, and, you know, this was good money that was going to good places from the feds. So hope to hear some exciting updates from the Minister in the near future on this one. That is also a question. Thank you.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we made the initial application process last summer when the call went out from the federal government. We understood that was accepted back in September. Now, you know, yeah, why or sorry, yeah, so this summer I guess last year now and then in the fall, and we continued to follow up with, frankly, the assumption and expectation that given that the, you know, focus on the need for lower carbon initiatives, the focus and need and understanding on climate change and the need to be at the forefront of taking steps to address climate change, to be, again, doing everything we can, whether it's GHG reductions or other forms of response, this, I agree, has some items here, whether it's Arctic Energy Alliance, whether it's greenhouse gas reductions, so on and so forth, that seems to align with what sound to be priorities coming out of the federal government, to jurisdictions such as ours, where we are at the forefront of climate change where we are paying huge amounts to run on diesel, in a situation where no one wants to run on diesel but we lack significant investment to make change. It was a surprise to me that here we sit in our budget sessions and still don't have a response on this. There has been communications at the ADM level, deputy level. I mentioned it directly myself to my colleague or counterpart. I understand that the deputy minister or assistant deputy minister is following up I want to say weekly, and I hope I'm not lighting too much of a fire under him, but at one point it was weekly because we had hoped, quite frankly, to not have to put our main estimates forward without this money in them. Here we are. I'm honestly surprised. It doesn't really make sense. I'll keep at it. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for Range Lake.
