Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following two documents: Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2024-2025; Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures) No. 2, 2024-2025. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tabling of documents. Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I move that this committee defer further consideration of the directorate activity in the Department of Finance on the Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2024-2025, at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Members -- the motion's in order. To the motion. I'm going to go to the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, it's just not clear to me what the merit or intent of the motion is so can the mover explain to committee why we need to defer this, what is the -- what's the ultimate purpose here?
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was planning to speak to this, which I will do now, I suppose, so if the Member will kindly give me his -- yes, his time.
So the -- during the course of debate on this line item, the Minister offered to -- I think the quote my learned friend has written down, happy to bring it back to Members. So some questions were raised to the Minister around the power rate subsidy. There are a few questions, and her own evidence before the committee or words in the committee where we can work more with Members, you know, we can take some more time to get more information forward. And when those kinds of things happen in -- over the course of debate, if there's an opportunity to wait, I think that's better. We do have time to further consider these estimates and -- yeah, and I think the expectation is that there's a certain amount of preparation for this level of detail when Members ask, and maybe that wasn't clearly communicated in the in-camera portion when we reviewed these supplementary estimates. It would give everyone time to bring all -- the full level of detail to the chamber to properly understand Members' questions and given that we don't have to make this decision today, we can defer this until a later date until those questions are resolved because I think it's -- if there are outstanding questions, it's more prudent to wait to approve the expenditure until we have answers. And I think there are some substantive questions here as well, not to mention that perhaps there's more money we can put into the subsidy and take the edge off consumers, which I would absolutely support if there's room to make those arrangements.
So I think, given all that and given that the Minister herself was saying, you know, she's happy to work with Members on this and provide more information, let's give her the time to do that and to continue this discussion once all the answers are available. So that's the intent of the motion.
Certainly, we don't like to move things that are unprepared but sometimes, through the course of debate, there's an opportunity to just put the brakes on and take a little more time with things. And that's the intention here. It certainly isn't to delay the process. If I don't want to support this, I'll just vote against it, but this is to get more information in the hands of the public and in the hands of Members who ultimately are representing their constituents in this chamber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy to -- well, I guess I can't answer any questions but I'm happy to speak to this further if you give me -- afford me the time to do so. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go back to the Member from Frame Lake to your question.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I guess -- I mean, the Member for Yellowknife Centre was speaking to this a fair bit. I wasn't paying perfectly close attention to what he was asking for, but I guess I'm just trying to understand here, like, what exactly is the information being sought? What's the intention to do something with it? Are we actually going to change something here? You know, I've heard Members raise a lot of concern about the cost of this appropriation to begin with so are we really considering changing anything here, or are we just gathering a bunch of information? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you. I'm sorry, amused at the process but I'm happy to continue to answer Members' questions. Thank you for the question.
So I think that the intent here is if there's outstanding questions that Members want answered, that we should, again, put a pause on it. We are spending 12 million -- like, the proposal here is to spend $12 million of taxpayer money and if we're not completely satisfied that that's a prudent expenditure, we shouldn't approve it. So the idea here is to pause until we can gather all the information. And if even one Member has concerns, I think we ought to give that Member the benefit of the doubt because, again, this is not the last day of the sitting. This does not have to be approved today. We still have time over the course of this sitting to approve this if it is deferred today, and that is the intention here. So, I mean, I don't think that there's a significant amount of urgency that we need to get this done today anyway. And, unfortunately, we do have to move on to other matters and call the page, so to speak. So it was either approve it today and just wait for more information or I think, again, more prudently, get the information before we approve the money. Because I've always found it uncomfortable when you have these kind of outstanding questions about an expenditure and the Minister commits to getting the information, typically we get it, but in the moment when you're considering it, if you don't have that on hand -- and we do have opportunities to ask these questions in other committees and other processes, but if -- so we have plenty of time to gather that information. If we still don't have it on the floor for the public, that is problematic in my -- in my assessment. So that is -- again, the reason for the deferral is just to give time. There's still plenty of time to debate this. There's plenty of time to approve it. And, again, maybe that number does change but that's up for the Members to decide. And once we have the information available to the House to consider, we can make that determination at this time, either by, you know, the Minister bringing forward an amendment or new supplementary appropriation or a deletion or whatever. But I think until we have that information, we can't make those -- we cannot make those considerations. And, again, if we're going to be prudent stewards of the public purse, we should be able to answer any questions Members have here before we move along with approving expenditures. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there any other Members that wish to speak to the motion. Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Clearly, we're here at this particular moment because some of the round of questions I had for the Minister and the staff, and essentially what boils down to it is trying to get the essence of what the $12 million is, what it does. I mean, I know what money does, but what -- how it's targeted in the sense of what it does. I mean, there were a few other questions -- I'm trying to wrap it up as simply as possible for the Member of Frame Lake so he appreciates that. I also sought the advice or thought of the Minister in the sense of the impacts of the delay. I mean, it sounds like a lot of moving parts are -- a lot of moving things, parts, yes, are happening here. But in the sense of that, time is always of the essence, but there is plenty of time on the clock. We may have, I think, approximately 16 days of session. You don't leave these things for the last minute. That wasn't the intention in any form. So we have at least - at least - 14 days of session days, including a week-break in between. So we have a lot of days over a particular line item to get further clarity. With respect to clarity on -- for one Member or all Members, I would say, similarly as the Member for Range Lake had just pointed out, it's $12 million. It deserves a little extra scrutiny. We're not talking about $20, a discretionary thousand dollars or, you know, a hundred thousand. It's $12 million. Yeah, it's bigger than some community budgets, whole budgets for the year. So it's a lot of money. And, you know, I'm worried and think the specific targeted money needs some more transparency. And that's all I'm asking for, and that's all the intent of the motion is. In the end, I think the Member for Range Lake's right. If you don't like it, vote against it. You like it, vote for it. Yeah, but I think it's a little more than that. It's about coming to the clarity of decisions and the process of compromise. The process here of compromises, let's just wait on this one line item through this process, and we'll get the clarity, and then those still against it can vote against it, and those who can vote for it will. So, ultimately, Mr. Chairman, the issue is not to stop this, but it's rather to have good reflection as to why we're passing $12 million. Now, in -- as a side note, which is very relevant, Mr. Chairman, my experience with $12 million personally is obviously zero, but on paper, quite often, and what I found and when it comes to budgeting and budget talks is the smaller the dollar amount, the more energy we put into something. So in other words, we talk about it, tear it apart, demand better accountability, etcetera. But the larger the number is, the less transparency and discussion we get. We just go, Well, we need 12 million bucks. You can't argue with that. But if someone said we needed $10,000 for an outhouse repair job, we'd be talking about that all day. And it's funny, the mechanism of dialogue of democracy. I've seen that on roads. I've seen that on fence repairs, mobile vehicles, etcetera, etcetera. The smaller the dollar amount, the longer we weigh in on something. So that's all it's asking for, Mr. Chairman, is just a little transparency to help Members fully understand so when the public comes to us, we want to feel our public dollars are going in a robust but an efficient way. And by all means, may be right. Maybe the number is too small. Maybe the number is too high. I don't know. But, I mean, we want to help give cost of living breaks as much as we can to our constituents and all Northerners. I mean, it matters because this is the day-to-day stuff that upsets people. These are the phone calls we get from people because they have difficulties getting by. So just saying, oh, we just approved $12 million, and it's only done a little, they'd ask me why we didn't do a little more. So, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to use all the time on my clock for no necessary reason, but I felt it was important to elaborate a little further because I think the Member for Frame Lake had some questions. I wanted him to understand the cornerstones of the issues. And it's not against the 12. I just feel transparency on the detail needs to be there. And maybe the last thing is the Minister was correct. I want to say that she didn't come prepared with that level of detail. Yeah, most of the time this probably is not necessary. And perhaps the Member for Range Lake was right. We should have given them a better head's up as well so -- on this type of level. So sometimes that's how it works. You get emotional and stirred on the floor on an issue. So that will be all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Yes, thank you. To the motion. Next I have on my list is the Member from Monfwi.
Okay. I just want to ask the Minister, so how many -- okay. NTPC, how many communities do we represent? Thank you.
Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that there's a motion on the floor. We're debating the motion. So this is just to the motion, to the Member.
This $12 million -- I mean, well, there's the, you know -- this does affect the small communities, people living in the small communities, because majority of us, I think, you know, uses this NTPC power, or it does provide the services to many of the small communities, so this $12 million. So I just wanted to ask the Minister, so is this -- if we approve this as it is, is it to keep the rate down in small communities? I don't know. Like, I would support it if it is going to help keep the rate down. Thank you.
Yes, thank you to the Member from Monfwi. Just so we're clear, there's a motion on the floor that was put forward by -- from the Member from Range Lake. We're debating that motion. So I just want to -- we'll come back to that, but I just want to -- I guess we want to move on. Is there any further questions to the motion, this motion on the floor? I want to go to the Member from Inuvik Boot Lake.
I had a question, Mr. Chair. Certainly, you know, out of respect for my colleagues, I'll support the motion if they want to defer. I certainly know that this $12 million is used to offset the rates for the outlying communities, one of which that I live in. Certainly I would like to see more of that money in there. We did have an opportunity to review this at the accountability and oversight committee at the time as well to get those details. But, again, if the motion is to defer, I respect my colleague's motions to do that, and we'll get that information back. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. There's a motion on the floor, and you could speak to the motion that was put forward by Member from Range Lake. There's a motion on the floor, so we won't -- we're debating that motion right now. So if there's no further questions to the Member's motion -- okay, I'm going to go to the Member -- sorry, the Minister of Finance to the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Chair, I mean, obviously I appreciate colleagues acknowledging that -- because the public doesn't realize that in this system we go through all of these materials with -- relevant Ministers will appear with colleagues at AOC confidentially to go through so that everyone's prepared, and questions -- I've had everything asked for -- sometimes people don't like to ask their questions because it's much more dramatic to ask them here. Sometimes they ask their questions and gives us the chance to bring materials. And, Mr. Chair, in this case, I did not have this question. I don't disagree that we do argue about the $5,000 things and not the $12 million things, and we should argue about the $12 million things. I appreciate that comment. But just so we're clear, yes, I did not anticipate this because this didn't come up previously. But that said, Mr. Chair, I have been sort of scrambling here with folks online. And I know there was a reasoning for it, and the reasoning in part with the 4 million -- or the $12 million over four is that puts us to a point in time when we are anticipating that there may well be an opportunity for NTPC to bring on industrial customers which would then -- at a rate that would reduce the requirement for this subsidy to continue. So that's the magic in that math. The details of that, I'd rather share with committee in confidence because some of that is not my commercial information to share. And I'd be happy to do that. That won't necessarily impact what happens on this decision, but I hope that gives at least some understanding as to the rationale underlying it. There can always be other choices, Mr. Chair. That is always the nature of policymaking and decision-making. But there was a rationale to it, and it was get us to that four-year period. After which point, based on the numbers we're expecting, the subsidy would not be required because a different source of funding would be available. Thank you.
Thank you for clarification. One more speaker, and then I want to go to the motion. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, given the comments of the Minister therefore I move that committee reports progress. Thank you.
There's a motion on the floor. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor to report progress. The motion is in order and non-debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion carried.
---Carried
I will now rise and report progress. Thank you.
---SHORT RECESS
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight will meet at the rise of the House.
Orders of the day for Monday, February 10th, 2025, 1:30 p.m.
Prayer or Reflection
Ministers’ Statements
Members’ Statements
Returns to Oral Questions
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery
Replies to the Budget Address (Day 3 of 7)
Acknowledgements
Oral Questions
Written Questions
Returns to Written Questions
Replies to the Commissioner’s Address
Petitions
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills
Reports of Standing and Special Committees
Tabling of Documents
Notices of Motion
Motions
Notices of Motion for First Reading of Bills
First Reading of Bills
Second Reading of Bills
Bill 17: Municipal and Community Affairs Statutes Amendment Act
Bill 18: An Act to Amend the Partnership and Business Names Act
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Tabled Document 275-20(1): 2025-2026 Main Estimates
Tabled Document 279-20(1): Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2024-2025
Report of Committee of th2:56e Whole
Third Reading of Bills
Orders of the Day
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
