Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have the acting deputy minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Bob Bailey; and, I have also have Jim Kennedy, director of corporate services. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. General comments. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some comments on this department as well. I have to put on record again my displeasure at the fact that we are going to see an ongoing budget increase for $1 million for this department. When you combine that with $1.7 million under ITI, this is a concern to me. I thought about this last night again and I can't help but think for many years, for example, many of us argued hard for extra funding in tourism. We could not get $500,000 into tourism. We can think of many things we could not get because the government keeps telling us there's not enough money, there is a restraint, we have a deficit, et cetera. It got so bad that in the last Assembly, the government even talked about introducing a whole new tax to bring about some sort of ongoing tourism funding. Here we are, we agreed to split two departments and we are going to be spending $2.8 million in ongoing spending. You can bet your bottom dollar, that $2.8 million is going to turn into $3 million in no time.

I must say, Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed with that. Yesterday, during the discussion of ITI, the Minister indicated, for example, when I talked about the fact that there would be duplications, replications or twinning of superintend positions, theoretically I thought those superintendent positions that used to look after the mandate of both ITI and ENR are going to be in charge of half of it or however the ITI and ENR break down in proportion. The Minister indicated they have been probably running flat out and they probably have enough work to do, but all these things wouldn't make any sense to people out there.

We talked earlier when we were considering ITI about the fact that with this Mackenzie Valley pipeline going on, it is a mega project bigger than any project the world has seen. It's probably in the top 10 for mega projects for the last 100 years in the world. There is not enough money for people to get involved in it. Even groups like the Status of Women Council can only get $5,000 out of the federal funding and here we can fork out $3 million on a yearly basis to create government positions on the ground. That just doesn't make sense to me.

I know there are good reasons and there are all sorts of reasons why, but I can't accept that. I am really, really quite upset about it. I don't think I can use the words. I really was hoping that we could do things differently and this is not the right way to align our priorities. I don't think it's reflecting the needs out there, from what people are saying. Yesterday I talked about the $1.7 million yearly increase into ITI that would build an indoor facility for every community for the next 20 years. You could have 20 indoor gyms built. This extra $1 million could have gone a long way too. I'm sorry, but we have this all backwards. I will just stop there. I am just going to ask a question on the Minister's opening statement.

I guess the Minister could comment on what I had to say about the increase in funding, but I would also like to pose a question on the Beverage Container Recovery Program.

I want to know why there are problems with implementing that by April 1st. My third question is to do with the Wildlife Act that's been under consultation for many years now and I would like to know what's taking so long to have that in place too. Those are three different topics. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to respond the way I did yesterday with the similar discussions around the cost to divide the department into the two separate mandates and the ongoing cost, we feel this is a priority of the government. The direction was one we took from the membership as a whole from the Assembly.

We have been working very closely with committee, I would say in every step of this plan as it's unfolded. We looked at a number of options. There were some options that had us spending as much as $7 million a year in ongoing costs if we were to truly duplicate some of the functions. We chose to pare that back and go with a much more prudent option and that meant sharing of resources. We will have the shared service centre model rolled out.

So we think we've tried to improve program and service delivery effectiveness. It does require adding positions and building some capacity in regions. Yes, it requires additional superintendents. I don't think you could do this and create two separate policy departments and then ask one superintendent to moonlight on both sides of the departments and then have it roll out effectively. So this was something I was supportive of. I guess I would take Members back to the amalgamation of these three departments some time ago and the $8 million savings at that point. We are up from there, but we aren't back to that original budget for the three departments and I think that was in 1996-97. So there has been an improvement in that area. I really think this is going to enable us to be much more effective and work with people in the regions and in communities to be more responsive on both sides of this department.

I have to restate that I think there are a lot of things that we are going to miss going forward if we aren't effectively organized. So I believe this allows us to do that.

The Beverage Container Recovery Program, we've had a number of hurdles, drafting of the regulations was one we had gone with a contractor outside of the internal resources of the department. That's been taking more time than we had initially thought. We have been working with the advisory group at each subsequent step as this program has been developed. There were some concerns from one of the main wholesalers in the Northwest Territories who wanted us to revisit the modeling and look at other options that put more of the administrative burden on retailers. We looked at some of these, didn't think it was practical and did make some concessions in terms of the amount of deposits that would be required, but this took time to work through these options. We also understood and recognized quite early on that we had to work quite closely with the advisory group to make sure that we had support at each step of the development. Then when the RFP process went out, we didn't get proposals for community depots from every community. We still have additional work to do there.

What we're going to do is try to roll it out to communities where we do have proposals, but then we're going to embark on a plan to go out and solicit interest from the other communities that didn't put forward submissions for a community depot and we do have some capital funds to apply to that initiative. So we're going to work very closely with communities and hope to get broader interest. So there have been a range of things that have led to some of the dates slipping. But we are optimistic that when we roll this program out, it can be rolled out effectively. The proposals will be ones that have successful and thorough business plans. The last thing we want to see is some of our community depots or regional processing centres fail after rolling out this legislation. So we are taking this slower than we had initially thought, but I think we're doing a more thorough job.

There was one other question the Member put to me and I'm going to have to ask, the Wildlife Act was the other question. Obviously this is another initiative that has been ongoing for a number of years and it has been slow going. The companion legislation, Species at Risk Act is another piece that we're working on. We hope to have some progress soon, but there's been some discussion and debate around the process chosen and how we could more effectively involve land claims and organizations in the process to ensure that they were consulted at every step of the way. This is a very cumbersome process, but, again, this is very important that we don't do anything that flies in the face of commitment through land claims and ensure that we take those into consideration and this has to be done thoroughly, it has to be done adequately. Wildlife I think is so important to people in the Northwest Territories that it requires this due consideration and careful progress. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I think with respect to the wildlife legislation we're taking the words doing it carefully and thoroughly a little too far. This has been under consultation for at least 10 years, or going into 10 years. I mean, surely nothing needs to be studied for that long and I still didn't hear a specific date or time frame from the Minister as to when we should expect to see that legislation because we have to keep in mind once it arrives here it has to be kicked into another whole consultation process. By the time this is done, we would have spent $10 million on the bill; it's just out of control. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that Members are frustrated with the time that this has taken. I think the government is frustrated as well and I know regional organizations share in that frustration, but the timelines that we're looking at are fall 2005 for introduction for the draft Species At Risk Act in the Legislative Assembly, and in terms of the Wildlife Act we think fall 2006 is a reasonable expectation in terms of our being able to introduce the draft Wildlife Act in the Assembly. We have ongoing discussions with the claimant groups and are working through this, but we are being asked to do this in a very measured manner and consult at every step of the way. So that is taking some time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Next I have Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. With regard to the environment and natural resources, one of the biggest initiatives that has been ongoing for a while too is the Beverage Container Recovery Program and it's something that people in my riding have expressed interest about. They look at how it's laid out and it's kind of confusing, Mr. Chair, because what they actually want to do is spend lots of money.

I think there are only three regional processing centres; Hay River, Yellowknife and Inuvik. What they actually have to do in order to meet the terms of this act is that smaller communities, very small communities, which are in my riding, like Nahanni Butte, Trout Lake, Jean Marie, have to get their recoverable wastes over to Hay River. It's manageable in a place like Wrigley who is covered by the road, Jean Marie is covered by the road and Fort Simpson and Fort Liard, but what it calls for is that it has to get to Hay River; it doesn't stop in Fort Simpson. The way the legislation reads and is worked out is that communities like Nahanni Butte and Trout Lake have to actually fly their recoverables over to Hay River to the regional processing centre.

In fact, the terms of the reference of the contract calls for them to fly the recoverables and you look at it and you say that doesn't make sense, that's like a logistical nightmare. What really makes sense there, Mr. Chair, is to make Simpson a regional processing centre and that will make sense because it's something that Fort Simpson has always been doing for 20 years. They've been storing glass and recoverables and making a go out of it. Now we've passed legislation that omits them from doing that type of work. In fact, using the road system we can become a recoverable centre for further up the valley from waste that comes out of Deline, out of Tulita and Norman Wells. Just using the road system, it makes sense to get it to Fort Simpson.

So that's something that I've taken up with the Minister and brought up on several occasions and I'd like to take this opportunity to bring it up again. Here we have an opportunity to do something that makes sense and I really think that we should strive towards that. Just with that, Mr. Chair, perhaps I can get the Minister to comment with regard to the eventuality or even making Fort Simpson a sub-regional processing centre. It doesn't make sense to fly all the goods from Nahanni Butte to Hay River, but it does make sense to get it to Fort Simpson or from Wrigley, from Jean Marie, from Trout Lake and we can bulk it up there and then perhaps get it to Hay River. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the Member for both his input and the community's interest in this program. I think that's the kind of interest I'm hoping that we can get from all communities. The Member is right. We've looked at regional processing centres in Hay River, Yellowknife and Inuvik. We think on the basis of what we'll have to pay out and what the program can generate, that there will be enough money to justify the three regional facilities. We're reluctant to add other processing facilities at this point because one of the premises here and one of the things that underpins this whole approach and strategy is that this will be self-sustaining. If we were to add additional deposits that were non-recoverable we could justify probably additional regional centres, but that would be such an onerous cost at some point for people to bear that we felt three was the most reasonable level for us to have.

The community depots will essentially be storage facilities and will likely have the storage capacity so that, for instance, the community depot only needs to empty its collection of recyclables potentially maybe once a year and it can be done in the winter on the winter road. We're certainly not proposing that these materials be flown around. We're going to look for the most cost-effective solution and I don't think that will include flying, unless for some reason there's some backhaul rate that's excellent and is cheaper than the winter road, but I can't imagine, Mr. Chairman, that will be the case. So that is the approach that we're taking. The materials will be driven or barges to the three regional processing centres. But I want to assure the Member, we're not flying things around at great expense. This program has to be self-sustaining, that is the goal. Now should the program warrant future regional processing depots, then that's something that I'm prepared to look at. We are paying attention to the interest from the community of Simpson and certainly the interest and efforts of the Member but, as I've indicated earlier, I don't want to hamstring this program and make it such that we have to subsidize it indefinitely because we've set up this large bureaucracy and administration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was just trying to convey to the Minister that it's already not making sense at all. I appreciate his concern about generating revenue and sustaining the three existing ones, but it just doesn't make sense when you are going to be spending all kinds of money trying to make money. It's just not making sense at all, Mr. Chair. So I just want to convey to the Minister that yes his logic is well thought out, but once you apply it that's where I'm thinking the practicality of the program just doesn't fit at all. I'm telling you that's what the legislation calls for. If the bins in Nahanni Butte are full in the summertime, they have to fly it to Hay River and that's a huge cost. That's like a charter cost to get it from Nahanni Butte to Hay River and the Minister talked about practicality and saving dollars and making dollars, but if they are going to be spending a whole lot because your legislation straps you or obligates you to do it, it just doesn't make sense.

Here we have an opportunity to say okay, we'll make Fort Simpson at least a sub-depot, we can get the stuff there from the smaller communities and the communities up further north, package them and then perhaps get them to Hay River and that's what I've been trying to convey to the Minister. At least we're going to have to do that because I know that there's going to be a cost savings there. Will the Minister look at that and take this heads-up notice that you know you're defending a program based on a high level research and I'm basing what I'm saying on the practicality aspects, because Simpson and the people that have been running the recovery program there for the past 20 years know what they are talking about because they've been actually dealing with this. So will the Minister look at revisiting this whole notion today before it's too late, Mr. Chair? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, we certainly want to work with all communities, Simpson as well, and I want to assure the Member we don't believe there will be any diminishment of the service that's currently offered in Simpson. We don't believe the materials are being separated. They are in fact being collected and then forwarded on from there. So that largely is the role of the community depot and that will remain the same. Simpson will still be a community depot.

Also, at some of the smaller communities you won't find the details of this program in the legislation because they aren't there. The details of the program are in the regs that we're developing. So these regulations are what we're working through with our advisory committee and there are a whole range of stakeholders on the advisory committee to advise us on the details of this program to make sure that they make sense and we don't do, as the Member has pointed out, things that are at cross purposes with our intentions here.

So the details of the program will be in the regs being developed. We, I think, imagine our vision, for instance a C-can sized storage facility being set up in a smaller community, and before I would think we would start flying materials around we'd probably add another C-can to ensure that we had the most cost-effective approach possible. I don't want this to be a program we've got to subsidize and, therefore, I don't think it makes sense to be flying glass and aluminium around the Northwest Territories and I take the Member's point. We certainly will take his advice. We will work very closely with the community of Simpson to make sure there isn't a diminishment of the service that they currently enjoy and I think in future the expansion of this program and future programs that this is the first program under this legislation, we'll take a very close look at that community, which, I think the Member is right, is well poised for this kind of development and program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Menicoche. Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mrs. Groenewegen.

My time is up.

Mr. Hawkins.