To the motion as amended.

Once again, we’re urging government to levelize our electricity rates in the North. Once again, we’re asking government that…. Electrical power’s an essential service. That’s something that none of our communities can get by without. We’ve got many, many remote

communities that operate on diesel-generated services and our community-rate-based structure. There’s no equity in that for our communities, Mr. Speaker. We’re expecting small communities such as Nahanni Butte, Colville Lake, Jean Marie to pay for the O&M and infrastructure of our power systems in those communities.

We cannot continue to allow that to happen. Any time one household attempts to save power by generating their own power or finding alternate means, that means everybody else has to pay. The way the structure’s set now, the Power Corp has to recover all O&M costs. As ridiculous as it may sound, if there’s only one household attached to that power-grid system, he’s paying for the whole operating and maintenance cost of that diesel system in that community, Mr.

Speaker. That’s

incredible. I don’t see how we’ve done it for so long, especially in this day and age. There’s just no room for that.

In my election campaign — in both of them — the one-rate power zone is still a priority in my communities. This motion, of course, speaks to levelizing the rates in the diesel communities, which I’ll certainly support. It’s one small step in making life a lot easier, one small step in making the cost of living a lot cheaper in our small and remote communities, which diesel generation affects. I certainly support it.

Over time we’ve always been finding that government has always said… It seems like that’s the only system they know, so they will continue doing it this way. We know through research and asking questions that all the jurisdictions in Canada operate on levelized rate zones.

Some of them maintain their one-way zones, like in Alberta. Northern Alberta doesn’t pay any less or any more than southern Alberta for their power rates. But in other communities — in other districts like Saskatchewan — the Northern communities do have a different rate zone. But it’s for the diesel communities and they all pay the same rates.

That’s something we should be gravitating toward. I’ve always believed that we’re government and we listen to the people, and if the people want levelized rate zones, then I believe that's the direction in which government should be moving.

We're governing the people, and we should be listening to them if the people want levelized rate zones. Not to mention that 30 cents per kilowatt-hour that my honourable colleague put out there. That goes a long way in stimulating and having more disposable income in the pockets of our people and our businesses that are out there suffering.

I too have many, many businesses in my communities that are struggling because of the

higher rate zones in our communities, as well as the riders that are there. The rate riders are there because costs are rising, but there again, it has a ripple effect. It means the costs are rising for our small businesses and our people as well.

But as government, we have a role to play. We have a role in helping our communities, our businesses and our people. Hopefully, the government will really consider this motion this time. We've done many in the past, and if nothing gets done, we're going to have many more to come.

Eventually, government is going to have to listen to the people and to Members from this side of the House. I've always said the government has to take the cotton balls out of their ears and put it in their mouths so they can really listen to what we and the people are saying.

With that, I am going to support this motion, and I urge other Members to support this motion, and I urge the government to listen. Mahsi.

To the motion as amended.

Mr.

Speaker, I too am very

concerned about the high cost of power in our small communities.

I think I have a record of dedicating a lot of my time, personal energy and interest in working with small communities to try to address this issue in creative ways.

Currently, we do subsidize residential and commercial use of power in all our communities, diesel-generated communities especially, to the rate of the first 700 kilowatt-hours per month, and so on, for residents.

I believe that the average residential use remains at or below that figure, and in fact, energy efficiency has helped residents to remain below that level, especially now, with the rebates, the various incentives and education for more energy-efficient appliances and so on. I’m optimistic that can continue, and continue to help our residents in small communities.

I am concerned that a levelized rate structure will hide the real costs in the communities and hinder efforts to replace those high-cost diesel-generated power systems with cheaper and more responsible alternative-energy systems. Hopefully, that can be mitigated, and if we do go to a levelized rate, I want to retain the knowledge of what the real costs are so that we continue to focus our efforts on replacing those systems with other systems that are cheaper and better.

It’s a very complicated and complex system, the whole business of electrical rates. I noticed that we have 19 diesel-powered communities. Current rates

are from 61 cents to $2.34 per kilowatt-hour. Therefore, I assume that the costs, once levelized, would be something around 80-plus cents. That means, for a number of communities, and particularly the larger communities, the rates will go up — significantly, in some cases — so I’m hoping all those communities are in line and in support of this before we go forward.

I am also concerned about one of the side-effects, and that is the attempt to use energy more efficiently. There has already been, for example, a call from the community of Whati, where there is a system to replace hot water heaters with more efficient hot water heaters, but there has already been a call saying, “Can we drop this program if we're going to go to a levelized rate structure?” I think we need to be cognizant of that possibility as we move forward, and not sort of do in the programs that we already have going.

Finally, I suspect, because of our small communities, we have a larger number of government institutions than there are commercial customers. Those government institutions are paying often a high rate and helping. It’s sort of an indirect subsidy for keeping rates reasonable. I’m concerned that because they’re a larger part of that, if we levelize, they will actually be the big winners in this. If we do go forward again, we need to be sure that we’re not shifting costs from government to the commercial users and so on. As I say, it gets to be quite a complex situation. I am totally committed to protecting our consumers and our public, especially in our small communities.

Finally, again I think I see a creative way to address the very high power rates in our small communities. I would like to see us move forward with systems where the power is generated locally from local resources and using local labour and building up our capacity at the same time. I totally believe that’s doable, and I want to see some creativity, a commitment from this government to creative solutions, on that standpoint. We’d have true savings to our small-community residents — savings where we’d also contribute to the local economic development and skill development and so on, as well as, of course, environmental benefits along the way. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the

motion as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to thank

Mr. Krutko for bringing up Motion 5. I know this has been a concern of the diesel communities for some time now. The rates for power in their communities are structured on a community-by-community basis. I also empathize with the cumbersome process when there is a general re-application and the extreme amount of study and work that it takes just

to keep the community-by-community–based rates current.

Hay River is not a community that is serviced by diesel anymore so, as Members of this House who are from communities that are on hydro, we’re being called upon to support something for diesel communities. I hope Mr. Krutko has some sense of how those communities would feel about a levelized rate, because I personally don’t have a sense of how those communities would feel about it. As Mr. Bromley said, about 50 per cent of those communities would actually see a rate increase, and about 50 per cent would see a decrease. That’s not anything that I particularly have knowledge about. I want to state that right from the outset.

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the cost of living in the Northwest Territories. Certainly, with the unpredictable rising costs of fuel and with these stand-alone rate structures, it is, I’m certain, a very big concern for those communities that are on diesel-generated power as to what their costs will go to.

In the past the PUB has come back with some comments on the idea of the social engineering of power rates. I’m paraphrasing, but they have stated something to the effect that they’re there to put the rate zones in place and make sure that the consumers are being protected. However, if the Government of the Northwest Territories wants to apply a social levelizing to those for fairness purposes, that is entirely within the purview of this government to do that. Certainly, through the territorial support program, the subsidy is exactly what we have done over the years.

Right now in the communities outside of Yellowknife, the first 700 kilowatts of power that’s consumed is levelized to the Yellowknife rate on the basis that it will be paid for out of the Territorial support subsidy program. Then the business community — small business at least — does have an opportunity to apply for a commercial power subsidy through that same subsidy program.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that even going a step further than what the levelling of the rates has indicated, I think it is also time for this government to review the possibility of looking at that cap of 700 kilowatt hours and looking at the size of homes that people have now that are more reflective of the quality of life that people want to enjoy in the communities — the modern conveniences which are now in homes which all consume energy. Certainly, there are many appliances on the market now that consume less energy, but the sheer volume of electric appliances and conveniences in the home, the sheer number of them, has actually increased. I don’t think it would hurt to take a look

at that cap of 700 kilowatt hours per household and see if that is sufficient.

To the issue of the small business subsidy, I think that this government should look at applying a subsidy at source as opposed to expecting people to apply for it after the fact. I think that would take a great deal of pressure off the small business community, and the economic development of our smaller communities will not be impeded by exorbitant and untenable power rates, which right now essentially they are getting very little support for.

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that this motion is relevant to the communities that have power that is generated by diesel. This does not speak to those communities like Fort Smith, Fort Resolution, Hay River, Yellowknife, Behchoko — and I am sure there are others — and Dettah that are on hydro. This is the Member’s attempt to bring forward a suggestion to the government to look at the viability and the benefit of the diesel communities having a harmonized or levelized rate. To the extent of that work being undertaken, this government should take this very seriously.

I feel very confident to support this motion and would encourage the government to respond favourably to looking at this. If we are serious about identifying the costs of living in the North as a priority of the 16th Assembly, this is a very good

place to start.

So with that Mr. Speaker, I’d just say that I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion as amended.

My choice today will be to support this motion, to let my colleagues know that though sometimes I don’t agree with all of their initiatives, I do support their aspirations. So, Mr. Speaker, I won’t be walking over to hug that Member, but on the record, he should know that he has my support on this issue.

I do have some concerns. I am worried about the rollout of it. But certainly we will have to deal with the details when they come forward. I have always supported the initiative of trying to find ways to decrease the cost of community living. What that means, as Mrs.

Groenewegen has mentioned

about raising the rates as we subsidize community fees from 700 kilowatt hours to 800, to be more responsible, to be more reflective of the times, or even making adjustments to commercial industry that can help deliver cheaper costs for things like food and whatnot…. I am in support of this motion, and I just express caution on how we go forward on this, only because I am concerned about the rollout of this. But for the intent, I am 100 per cent on.

With regard to the motion, I would like to update the Members on what the Government of the Northwest Territories will be doing. The Government of the Northwest Territories intends to undertake a review of the electricity rates, regulation and subsidy programs. Cabinet recently authorized the establishment of the ministerial energy coordinating committee to ensure that the energy priorities identified by the 16th Legislative Assembly are coordinated across government. This committee is comprised of the Ministers of Industry, Tourism and Investment; Environment and Natural Resources; and the Minister Responsible for the Northwest Territories Power Corporation.

Undertaking a review of electricity rates, regulation and subsidy programs will be a high priority of the ministerial energy coordinating committee. While the Government of the Northwest Territories has made many investments in such areas as energy conservation and efficiency and the application of alternative energy, it is important that administrative and regulatory systems are reviewed as well. For example, businesses in our remote communities have a difficult time competing and providing goods and services at affordable prices due to the high cost of power.

The proposed electricity review will examine this area closely to determine options for reducing the high cost of doing business in N.W.T. communities. With a complex system, including separate rate zones for each community, there are likely opportunities for change. This is consistent with recent Government of Northwest Territories efforts to refocus operations, ensuring that programs and services reflect the priorities of the 16th Legislative

Assembly. The ministerial energy coordinating committee intends to consult closely with Members of the Legislative Assembly on this important and complex initiative, and we look forward to your active involvement and input.

An electricity review working committee has been established to undertake the review of the electricity regulations, rates, power subsidy programs in the N.W.T. The review process and the terms of reference for the working committee will be reviewed by the Deputy Minister of the energy coordinating committee and will be forwarded to the ministerial energy coordinating committee for approval. The committee membership is composed of Industry, Tourism and Investment; Financial Management Board Secretariat; and Department of Finance, with the head of the NWT Power Corporation acting as a technical advisor to the committee.

The current, draft objectives of the committee are to:

1) Examine the N.W.T. Public Utilities Board Act

and the associated regulatory system for establishing electricity rates and develop options aimed at reducing complexity and administrative costs;

2) Examine other jurisdictions to consider

governance models that will provide fair rates and interests processes and oversight tools; maintain an appropriate level of procedural fairness, impartiality, transparency and accountability without creating unnecessary complexity;

3) Examine the current approach of community-

based electricity rates and develop alternative approaches to rate setting aimed at reducing overall system complexity and costs;

4) Examine the Government of Northwest

Territories commercial and Territorial power subsidy programs, analyze their effectiveness in ensuring that N.W.T. residents and businesses have access to affordable power, and develop options for change as required;

5) Examine the various public policy issues that

will arise during this review, including issues related to the role of the Government of Northwest Territories in the provision and regulation of electricity in the Northwest Territories, and provide a critical analysis and future policy options that consider the approach in other jurisdictions as well as the unique nature of N.W.T. markets.

The current proposed schedule includes a technical review and analysis, in consultation with internal and key stakeholders, until June 2008. A public discussion paper will be prepared for cabinet’s consideration in September 2008, with public consultations occurring throughout the fall of 2008. This will lead to a detailed report for cabinet’s consideration in 2009.

With this information, this will help make an informed vote on the motion.

I will allow the Member for Mackenzie Delta to close debate…. The hon. Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, on the motion as amended.

Mr. Speaker, the first day of session I spoke to the extremely high power rates residents of Inuvik were facing. And we’re a gas community — supposedly a gas community. Power rates are affecting everything in Inuvik. The recreation facilities are being affected; the goods and services that are sold are being affected. Our power rates have gone up. We have the gas field 20 kilometres

from town. We still pay less than they do in a place like Norman Wells. If we want to levelize, we can levelize the gas communities: Inuvik and Norman Wells. We’ll get good rates for both communities, I’m sure.

But the cost of power, electricity, has been a concern. I had to do some research and ask some questions, because I wasn’t sure how this was going to affect Inuvik. Inuvik is a gas community, so it wouldn’t affect us that much. I would like to see…. You look at the power rates that are paid across the Northwest Territories — and I understand some are hydro communities, and they have a lot lower rates than some; I see some where they pay $2 — the prices are just unreal across the board. I understand that the Power Corp needs to make a return on their investment.

We talk about energy-efficient appliances all the time. We try to educate people as to converting to energy-efficient appliances, and they’ve taken our direction. A lot of them have moved over to more energy-efficient appliances. Then power goes up, in my opinion to compensate for less power being used. I have an issue with that, and I think it’s happened. I look at the documentation we get, and you see the diesel riders, the shortfall riders, and I was just noticing another one: Rider 1. It doesn’t even say what it’s for; it just says Rider 1. We’ve got a whole posse of riders out there.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would support this motion. I had some questions first, and I was okay with the answers I was given. But if this is an opportunity to lower the cost of living in the communities across the Territories, then it’s something that I’m all for and I think we should all be for, because everything that goes on in communities is affected by power. The higher the rate, the more that people have to pay.

You get places like Inuvik, for example, and if one of the big stores were to get off the power grid and pull in their own generator, that would drive everybody else’s prices up. So this is something that we have to look at. Personally, I would like to see one rate zone right across the Northwest Territories. But there will be some resistance to that….

Interjection.

Already, see? And rightfully so, I suppose.

Then I hear of a project called the Talston hydro project. Who is that going to benefit? The people of Ulukhaktok, the people of Inuvik? No, it’s not. That’s something that I wouldn’t be able to support. I’ll support anything that has a positive impact on most of the people that we represent. The people up in the northern part of the Northwest Territories seem to be paying the highest rates of anything that

goes on. We have to try and be in this forum and do what’s fair for the people across the Northwest Territories, because that’s what they expect us to do. The power rates went up in Inuvik, and I heard it from everybody. I heard it from citizens; I heard it from businesses. It just affects everything.

I have a list here of the diesel communities. There are 19 of them. I don’t see Inuvik on the list, so I am going to support this motion. Thank you.

The mover of the motion for concluding remarks, Mr. Krutko.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their comments in regard to the motion. I’d like to thank the Minister for making us aware of what is happening in regard to the Minister’s energy coordinating committee.

But I think we also have to realize that I read a decision that was made by the Public Utilities Board in 1995. It is 12 years later, and we are still talking about this issue. So I think it is important that we act now. By the Minister’s direction and the committee work on this motion, I believe it will get us to where we want to go. Hopefully, we will have it completed before our four-year term is up in this 16th Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make everybody aware of what Minister Bob McLeod touched on. I think the biggest beneficiary of this is going to be our business community and the socio-economic viability of our communities. And that alone has a price tag. As I stated, we’re spending in excess of some $14 million on subsidies by way of the Territorial Power Support Program, the Housing Corporation subsidy by way of $4 million. The cost of this government to file some 28 applications every time there’s a PUB process.

I think it’s important that, as government, through those savings…. I know my colleague Mr. Bromley touched on exactly what are we doing to try to find new ways of generating energy initiatives. If everybody were on hydro it would solve the problem. Realistically, that’s not going to happen in regards to Kugluktuk, Sachs Harbour, Tuk or even in the communities in the valley unless we do something by way of a hydro project.

I know we’ve invested $1 million to look into hydro projects in regard to Whati or Lutselk’e. That’s the start we have to move on. In order to do more of those, we have to re-invest the money that we’re spending right now by way of Territorial Support Program, the money that we spend in regards to the social housing subsidy, by way of power subsidies. The amount of time and money that’s been consumed to file these applications every two or four years is a very costly endeavour.

It is important that we look at that. We’ve already done some of that by way of looking at what’s happening in the hydro communities, heating public buildings to using hydro surplus heat.

I, for one, feel that this motion will eventually kick-start the process, and we will be able to move forward. With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to support this motion. Also, at this time I’d ask for a recorded vote.

The Member has asked for a recorded vote. I would ask all Members in favour of the amended motion to please stand.

I’ll ask those opposing the amended motion to please stand. I’ll ask all those abstaining from the motion to please stand.

Results of the vote: 11 for, zero against, 7 abstaining.

Motion as amended carried.

Item 18, first reading of bills. Item 19, second reading of bills. Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, Minister’s Statement 1-16(2), Minister’s Statement 9-16(2), with Mr. Krutko in the chair.

I’d like to call the

Committee of the Whole to order. In consideration in the Committee of the Whole we have Minister’s Statement 1-16(2), Minister’s Statement 9-16(2).

At this time I’d like to ask what is the wish of the committee?

Interjections.

Does the committee

agree that the consideration of Minister’s Statement

1-16(2) and Minister’s Statement 9-16(2) is concluded?