Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize if this is the incorrect section, Mr. Chair; you are going quite quickly. But in the department's business plan on page 7 of their business plan update, there is a discussion of establishing a continuous improvement committee. Can the Minister please expand on what that committee is continuously improving. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am also quite excited about this. It is very much an internal committee though, so I'm going to turn that over to the deputy minister, please.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm excited about this one as well. It's a committee that we're looking at all of our processes and determining which ones we can make efficiencies on. One of them was the reorganization of the Department of Infrastructure when we amalgamated with public works and services and transportation. There were certainly some opportunities to improve our workflows through that. Using some value stream analysis, we were able to look at those processes and look at how the organizational -- organization is set up for success. And we're making small changes, but it is one that's taking a fair bit of time. People are doing it off the corner of their desks, but it is one that we are making incremental changes and efficiencies on a regular basis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I consider myself a pretty big nerd, and I don't really understand what that meant. So maybe if I could get the Minister to explain it a little bit further in plain English. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I'm happy to turn to the deputy one more time. I know we do have a bit of detail here that we could provide. Let me start there, and perhaps we'll also bring Amy into the question -- Amy Burt into the answer before we are done. Thanks.
Thank you. I'll go to the deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So a value stream analysis is just basically how work and information flows through our department, how it comes in as a notional plan. It comes into the notional plan, we go for funding for it, we do the engineering, we do all the planning work, all the permitting and everything. And without that, there are times where that work plan will sort of zigzag and go back and forth on some of the processes where it should be a steady line where each phase of the process is moving -- is advancing forward and not going back to a different department. So it's more taking it from, you know, it starts with environment -- well, it starts with finance, it goes to environment, and then it goes to the engineering, and then it turns to the project management. So looking at those type of efficiencies on a project front, it's just making -- just streamlining and making it easier for the process to flow through and to know where we are, where the chokepoints or on those processes. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. I'll go to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So would it not be something that could be addressed with regular project management processes, like GANT charts? It's -- or is there just way too many moving pieces? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, so some work that we do certainly does already include using things like a GANT chart or other strategic tool. This was really meant to be one that would look, again, at that process from a different lens. So, you know, you can say, for example, if you use that lens and you identify a process that's not efficient, this is the committee that would be then led or tasked with fixing the problem. So even a small example would be using eApprove for approving monthly variance reports that come through and obviously -- I shouldn't say obviously. But Department of Infrastructure does have a lot of variances on -- because there's such a large number of projects that are being monitored on any given time. So, you know, helps to coordinate that process as a whole. So it really -- you know, much like having the red tape production working group over in the Department of Finance, you could say it doesn't just naturally happen, and the reality is when, you know, folks are doing their day-to-day work and keeping the lights on, that doesn't necessarily lead to taking the time to evaluate whether or not what we're doing is the best way of doing it. This is meant to be a focused effort to do that. It's in the business plans focused effort to do that. It's a publicly reported target as part of that business plan that, really, we want to say this is an area that we know that we have some room that we could do some work on, and this is that initiative. I hope that's a bit more helpful. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And when the Minister said eApprove, my whole body shuttered. Not a fan. But I understand why it does help projects move along more smoothly in theory.
Changing the line of question. I was hoping that the Minister could get into what budgetary implications can be expected from the department's commitment to get to net zero by 2050. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm expecting there may be some. I can't necessarily say with certainty at this moment, and the reason being that the energy strategy update is still being drafted. It is an item that I believe we will have something forward for within this fiscal year, and once we have the new updated strategy that outlines a bit more, that certainly puts us in a better position to be specific as to what areas of net zero will require funding. I mean, there's certainly with respect to any significant energy infrastructure changes, whether it's the Taltson Expansion, if that is an area that we move forward on, whether it's micro hydro projects in small communities, all of those will advance us to a net zero. Which one advances under which timeline, certainly that changes, but all of those items come with significant dollar value. So all of those, of course, are capital projects, Mr. Chair. Those are going to be the big-ticket items. But, yes, that's -- at this point in time, again, I -- what I can commit to is making sure we get that new updated energy strategy out as that will really outline ultimately where the budget will be needed. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for that answer. So keeping that in mind, then, that you're expecting to see more through the renewed energy strategy, will there be a lens placed on some of these projects, the larger capital projects the Minister mentioned, that will provide information to both Members and the public around the sort of estimated spends that will help us get to net zero; will that be part of the information presented? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we already do provide certainly some information with respect to the amount of change or expected change that you would see in the capital planning process. The macroeconomic policy that we are looking to bring forward and to put -- apply a lens to will also include a consideration since there's obviously -- again, I shouldn't say obviously. Nothing's -- there's always open questions. But not having access to energy efficiency does, indeed, create risk of increased costs over time. So that would be part of that lens, and that is something that is coming through and will be part of the substantiation that we see for capital projects. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Great Slave.
Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And with the time I have left, I guess I'll be -- I'll try and be a little bit more specific.
Could committee anticipate to see an estimated dollar amount attached to large capital projects in terms of how much of that spend would go towards net zero reductions? Obviously, I realize that might be very intangible in terms of, say, something like Taltson or -- but it could be something really tangible like increasing the spend through Arctic Energy Alliance on getting wood stoves into more small communities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So there certainly is a cost benefit analysis that does form part of the business case for any large project, and that would want to take into consideration O and M costs which, in turn, would reflect higher costs depending upon the source of energy or the volatility of the energy source. So Mr. Speaker -- or sorry, Mr. Chair, the short answer is I would think we would -- the answer's going to be yes, but maybe not on every single item or every single smaller project, but on larger projects it will be. Where I think this might -- the rub of the question, though, is on whether or not the information that we're doing or the analysis we're doing is meeting the request of the Member. I certainly heard different versions of this. So perhaps I can commit to sit down and just make sure that what we are bringing forward in our capital plan does meet the needs and requests, and certainly, if not, I'm only going to face more questions, so I'd be -- it's in my interest to have that resolved early. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Next on my list I have is the Member from Sahtu.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is I'm kind of looking at the top of the list there for contributions advancing hydro public engagement, then has no more money here, and then looking down, energy corporation lease, lease agreement, energy, NWT energy efficiency projects. Is one of these, or maybe throughout the other pages, is there a program that is undergoing discussions and possible funding for the Deline hydro project? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, none of -- these are broad funding agreements and some of them -- well, obviously, some that were -- are already have sunsetted with -- they were in the 2023-2024 line or 2024-2025. But for other areas, they are -- other grants and contributions, there's none that are necessarily specific to the Deline micro project. Now, that said, I know I have had outreach from Ek’Wahtide Gaudet in Roundup on this. We're certainly keen to examine and explore the possibility of micro hydro. I'm certainly very keen on it. So some of that is work that can be done within our department by the folks who are -- you know, by the proposed budget in front of you to continue to staff having a strategic energy division that will help allow for the staff who have the expertise to do exactly this kind of investigation. So while it doesn't have a specific line item, again, I'm quite confident that at least at this stage, we can work with the Deline Got'ine Government to move this along. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from the Sahtu.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to the Minister for that reply. The Minister had mentioned that some of the funding sources have sunsetted. I'm more specifically looking down at the low carbon economy leadership fund, and you got three sources there for a total of $10.3 million. And the Minister had mentioned earlier, earlier in the day, about ongoing negotiations there for the Arctic Energy Alliance funding. Is that related to the numbers that we're seeing? Is that what is being lobbied by this government to reinstate those three line items for a total of $10.3 million? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have certainly raised this both with Minister Guilbeault and Minister Wilkinson. It is quite frustrating as I understand that the federal government reallocated the money that previously was under this fund to areas that were not beneficial to the Northwest Territories, certainly not in ingrowth equal amounts, for example with respect to diverting it to heat pump initiatives that while we will certainly continue to investigate the ability and the applicability of heat pumps to the Northwest Territories, there are regions for which the current technology is not compatible. So as I say, I have certainly voiced that on more than one occasion, my frustration. We're not alone in voicing that frustration. But to date, I have not received any positive response from the federal government that they would re-examine this funding specifically. I think they were looking at changing some of the accessibility or eligibility on some of the other funds so that we can apply. But this stream, the funding, in particular these three streams under the LCLELF, have not been reinstated by the federal government. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from the Sahtu.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to the Minister for that update there. And I look forward to a favourable reply later on in the year and wish the Minister the best of the lobbying efforts to reinstate those funds. Mahsi.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to first ask a question about -- the Member for Yellowknife North touched upon it today in her Member's statement, and I wanted to follow up, you know, during budget here. Certainly, it was unfortunate to see the discontinuation of the low carbon economy leadership fund, and I just note that there's a few projects that have discontinued funding also under the energy action plan, and I was just wondering -- you know, I see the electric bicycles rebate, any electric vehicles rebate. And I'm just wondering is there a reason why the money that was saved from these programs wasn't redirected to different programs in the energy action plan, particularly the low-income program to address energy poverty? I know during budget last year, we talked about the importance of that program and how it would be nice to see that program expanded. Can the Minister speak to that and why the savings that we've achieved from removing older programs -- or other programs -- sorry, is not being used to move towards other programs in the energy action plan? Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I'm going to send that one to Ms. Burt, please.
Thank you. I'll go to the director.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The energy action plan fund sunsetted in 2023-2024 so the contributions that you're seeing afterwards -- and that would be for community energy planning, the fast charger corridor, and then the low-income program, those were all kind of submitted supplemental. So in order to kind of reinstate the funding for those ones that were no longer continued, we'd have to go forward with a new submission. But the reason why the other ones were reduced was just as a result of sunsetting funds. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go back to the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, maybe the Minister or her staff could give us an update on kind of on progress that they've been making in advocating the federal government for kind of continuation of these funds or perhaps obtaining new funds. I notice that, you know, when we look at the revenue items on page 262, there's a number of different projects for which we got new funding this year or increased funding. I won't list them off, but I do see a number there. So I'm just wondering if we -- why we haven't made progress on getting funding for programs like this. Certainly, the low-income program in particular to address energy poverty, I would love to see us to get funding for or move funding around to make it possible to continue funding this program, because I do see it as critical. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the low-income program to address energy poverty, that does continue to have the same $200,000 amount that is -- was in place since 2023-2024. That has not changed. The other programs, to the extent that there were federal funds available, I mean, Mr. Chair, you know, I -- I can only say, as I said to the other Member, I was surprised given what seemed to be the current federal government's interest in this space that this received such a drastic reallocation of funding. I say reallocation because as I understand it, the money that went to the low carbon economy leadership fund was directed to other areas; one being in particular again, as I said, the heating pumps but there was a secondary one which, again, was around different fuel sources and, again, nothing that was necessarily applicable to the Northwest Territories or as directly applicable as this particular funding was. I don't know. It really does not strike me as intuitive as to why those changes were made. We have raised it. I suspect, given the state of affairs in shift or likely to be in shift shortly with our federal colleagues, that this is an area that we will have to re-examine once we know what the next government's iteration of priorities might be in Ottawa. But other than that, that I'm -- unfortunately, that's about as much as I can provide for right now. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, you know, I just want to emphasize to the Minister that, you know, some of these programs -- even some more than others, particularly the low-income program, but there is a number of programs put forward under the low carbon economy leadership fund that were about more than just reducing greenhouse gases which, of course, is an important goal. But also these are some of the key programs that have been used in the territory to help people reduce their cost of living, which is -- it's something that politicians constantly talk about, and it's one of the areas that we have the least ability to affect things, except for this area, helping people to reduce their heating costs, helping people reduce the cost of operating their homes. So I personally think programs like this, that are geared towards those goals, really are important and need territorial funding even if we don't have the funding coming from Canada though I strongly encourage the Minister to come -- to go to Ottawa and demand funding for things like that. But areas where we're able to -- you know, these programs have been in every case oversubscribed. A lot of people are interested in getting this kind of funding. A lot of people are interested in doing upgrades to their homes which will help them, you know, reduce their carbon output and help them save money. So I just really want to make the case for that and would encourage the Minister to fund programs accordingly and just to understand that, you know, we put a lot of money into big infrastructure projects in this department, and I'm not denying that those are important but, you know, a little bit of money to each individual homeowner goes a long way to helping them reduce the cost to their pocketbooks, and that's the thing that people feel when you make changes for them. People aren't going to notice their costs go down, you know, because we put a bunch of money towards this or that infrastructure project. So I do just want to make that case to the Minister. She can reply if she wants. But it's something that I think is an important area. I think it's important to residents. The fact that these programs have been oversubscribed year over year over year tells us this is something that is important to residents. So, yeah, any case I can make for continuing the programs, I will make it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
