Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Minister Miltenberger and the NWT Housing Corporation for their responsiveness to the concerns of Regular Members with respect to the home-repair program referred to as CARE, also the On-the-land program for seniors and the willingness of the department to look, going forward, for opportunities to develop housing options for families who may have family members with disabilities. We will certainly look forward to that discussion with the NWT Housing Corporation going forward.

Mr. Chairman, when you call this page — unless there are other Members who wish to speak to this — I believe we would be willing to consider concluding the consideration of the NWT Housing Corporation Main Estimates today.

Thank you,

Mrs.

Groenewegen. Were there any other

responses to the Minister’s comments? No comments.

Okay. Here we go then. Thank you for that. We’re on page 2-149, NWT Housing Corporation, information item, Corporate Summary, Operations Expenditure Summary, Expenditure Category: $81.527 million. All agreed?

NWT Housing Corporation, Corporate

Summary, Operations Expenditure Summary, Expenditure Category: $81.527 million, approved.

That, ladies and gentlemen, concludes consideration of the Housing Corporation. Thank you.

I believe it’s the wish of the committee to move on to Environment and Natural Resources. Agreed?

Thank you,

Mr.

Chairman. Yes, I do. The Department of

Environment and Natural Resources is responsible for working with all people and interested organizations to protect our environment. This is done through the responsible and sustainable use of our resources for the social and economic benefit of residents.

Departmental goals include the protection of our air, land, water, wildlife and forests, a recognition that these important elements are linked, and an understanding that all residents have a part to play in keeping the environment healthy.

For the 2008–2009 fiscal year the departmental Main Estimates total $56.9 million, representing a decrease of approximately 1 per cent from the previous year. While the current fiscal situation of our government presents some challenges, it has also demanded the department focus its efforts on a few key areas and improve overall efficiencies in some programs.

Climate change remains a serious issue for the NWT. New actions proposed will help the GNWT achieve its greenhouse gas emission targets and will allow the GNWT to assist other sectors to develop their own emission-management plans and targets.

During 2008–2009 the department will spend almost $1

million on energy conservation and

alternative energy initiatives. Another $1.1 million will be spent on improving our environmental monitoring efforts. Members will note that there have been some reductions. Some of this funding will be re-profiled to meet actions identified under the Strategic Initiative Managing This Land and support the Legislative Assembly’s goal of an environment that will sustain present and future generations.

An operational review of the fire management program identified proposed reductions and increased efficiencies. ENR will work within these parameters and focus on a fire-management program that meets the objectives of protecting persons, property and other values at risk.

During 2008–2009 ENR will continue to provide wise stewardship management and protection of our natural resources and environment. Work will continue on major legislative initiatives, including tabling a new Species at Risk Act this spring, drafting a new Wildlife Act, expanding programs under the Waste Reduction and Recovery Act, and updating and modernizing forest management legislation and policy.

As I previously mentioned, the department will be focusing on four strategic investment areas: protect our waters, mitigate and adapt to climate change, improve environmental monitoring, and environmental stewardship. These actions identified under the Managing This Land Strategic Initiative are essential in ensuring our environment sustains present and future generations.

Members of this Legislative Assembly, aboriginal governments, and residents have identified protection of our water resources as a major priority. In response, the department is leading the development of an NWT water strategy to guide our actions in protecting water supply and quality.

ENR will also work closely with other departments to develop a Northwest Territories land-use framework. This framework will guide GNWT participation in land and governance issues and help to increase northern control over land and resources. In order to effectively respond to the proposed Mackenzie Gas Project and other major development projects, the GNWT requires the capacity to participate effectively in the regulatory reviews and manage the impacts of development.

Environmental monitoring is a crucial element in ensuring the sustainable development of our resources. Completion of the Northwest Territories ecosystem classification will provide a vital tool for government and industry in ensuring resource development is sustainable.

Environmental stewardship is a shared responsibility in the NWT and an integral part of our

day-to-day activities. We will continue to work with federal departments and agencies, aboriginal governments and organizations, industry, harvesters and stakeholders to preserve and conserve our wildlife and forest resources and protect our environment. Given the potential impacts of increased resource development on wildlife habitat, extra focus will be placed in some areas, including implementing actions outlined in the Barren-Ground Caribou Management Strategy to address issues raised by Members of the Legislative Assembly, co-management boards and delegates at the Caribou Summit.

As Members know, environmental issues are high on the agenda of NWT residents and other Canadians. The department will continue to work with federal and territorial departments and agencies, aboriginal governments, communities and other stakeholders on these issues. I am confident the Main Estimates for Environment and Natural Resources will ensure our environment can sustain present and future generations.

I would like to thank the Members of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure for their comments and suggestions during review of the Main Estimates. I look forward to the committee’s comments today, and I’m prepared to answer any questions the Members may have.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I will now call the Chair of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure to provide opening comments. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The committee met with the Minister and his staff on April 9, 2008, to consider the department’s 2008–2009 Draft Main Estimates. The committee noted that the total operating budget for 2008–2009 is $56.942 million. Committee members offer the following comments on issues arising out of the review of the ’08–09 Draft Main Estimates.

Reductions to Forest Management

There were significant reductions to the forest management budget. The majority of the reductions were based on a review undertaken by the department that identified a series of measures that could be implemented to reduce expenditures and still provide effective forest management services. These measures included a reduction to the number of pre-suppression contract fire crews from 39 to 29, and a more cost-effective, coordinated approach in the use of rotary-wing aircraft.

Committee members acknowledged that there were efficiencies to be gained within this activity. However, Members voiced concerns about the

impact the reductions to fire crews would have on people who rely on firefighting for seasonal employment. Firefighting represents a significant employment opportunity for many residents, particularly those in small communities. This reduction potentially leaves those who rely on employment through these contracts with very few options other than income support.

Also of concern to Members was the reduction to the FireSmart

Program, which supports

communities to undertake wildlife risk mitigation planning. The reductions will mean less support and resources for communities to undertake this type of planning. Members note that, overall, the reductions to forest management may have left the department and communities somewhat vulnerable if there’s a bad fire season.

The forests in the NWT are an important renewable resource that has significant potential to support sustainable small-scale industries such as biomass for heat production, timber harvesting and sawmill operations. The committee encourages the department to work with communities to explore these opportunities as a way to support local economies and promote the use of renewable energy.

Energy Planning and Climate Change

Committee members were supportive of the government’s efforts in moving forward with key renewable-energy initiatives such as wind energy and hydroelectric development. These are important initiatives that will support reductions to greenhouse gas emissions over the long term. Committee members want to see these efforts be balanced with more immediate actions to address the mounting challenge of climate change here in the Northwest Territories.

Members believe that government must develop new initiatives that actually gain net reductions to greenhouse gas emissions in the Northwest Territories. Members request the government move beyond voluntary efforts and establish standards and enforceable regulations as part of the effort to mitigate climate change impacts.

That concludes the committee’s review of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. I’d just like to thank the committee members involved in the review, as well as the Minister and his staff, and our committee researcher, Ms.

Cate Sills, and our Committee

Clerk, Ms. Patricia Russell.

Thank you,

Mr. Ramsay, to you and your committee. I will now ask the Minister if he would like to bring witnesses into the Chamber. Mr. Miltenberger.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Does the committee agree?

Thank you, committee. Mr. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber. Will the Minister please introduce his witnesses.

Mr. Chairman, I have with me Mr.

Gary Bohnet, the acting deputy

minister of Environment and Natural Resources, and Ms. Nancy Magrum, the director of finance and administration for Environment and Natural Resources.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I will now open the floor to general comments from the committee. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the priorities that has been in this House year after year, from one Legislature to another, is the Wildlife Act. The Inuvialuit signed their land claim agreement in 1984, and that agreement has a very large component that deals with the wildlife aspect of those agreements. The Gwich’in signed their agreement in 1992; the Sahtu, in 1994; and now the Tlicho agreement. Yet we spend millions of dollars on consultations, lawyers and meetings.

I think we have to bring closure to this legislation and allow it to see the light of day. We can talk about the environment and protection of the wildlife, but you have to have the legislative tools, the authorities, to be able to allow those land claim agreements, those regulatory bodies that are established under those arrangements, to have a say in wildlife management, land and water management, and protection of the environment.

Those land claim agreements weren’t negotiated lightly. It’s been in process for 20 years, and I think it’s important to realize. I

noticed that in your

opening comments you talked about how the government wants to take control of lands, resources and wildlife environments. A lot of those lands you’re talking about are First Nations lands. A lot of the responsibilities are already in place by way of land claim agreements and wildlife legislative authorities. Basically, provisions of those land claim agreements are paramount over territorial legislation.

It’s the same thing in regard to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which flowed from the Dene/Métis claim process into the Gwich’in claim, the Sahtu, and now the Tlicho.

I think it’s important to realize that with this endeavour we’re on, we seem to build up a bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy. But when it comes to actually seeing some physical proof that we’re really seeing a change, legislative change, it seems to move at a snail’s pace into this legislature to be passed and put into force.

For me, a first priority has always been the Wildlife Act. We spend a lot of time and emphasis on species at risk. There is a federal responsibility under that, and yes, we have some responsibility, but I think the Wildlife Act is more important than the Species at Risk legislation.

In regard to the NWT Water Strategy, we already have a legislative framework or tool to work from, which is the Mackenzie Valley basin management agreement, which has been signed and which I was part of back in 1985–86. All the jurisdictions where the Mackenzie basin flows, from Saskatchewan to Alberta to B.C. to the Yukon to the Northwest Territories, are signatories to that water basin agreement. If anything, we should be building on that and signing off on these bilateral agreements between the different provinces and territories so we can have control of that resource.

What’s happening in Fort McMurray and the threats you hear from the community of Fort Chipewyan: we’re not immune to that. They’re looking at uranium development in the region I represent in regard to the headwaters of the Peel River, which flows into the Mackenzie Delta and into the Arctic Ocean.

With these developments, regardless of whether it’s the Fort McMurray development of fossil fuels or mining development of uranium, from what happened on Great Bear Lake and Uranium City to uranium developments in a lot of our watersheds.... In regard to different sanctuaries we have, I think it’s important that as governments we build on what’s already there and not start something that’s going to take a lot of resources and money — that we be realistic about what goals and objectives we’re trying to meet.

Like I stated when I started talking, the Wildlife Act is something we’ve been talking about forever. Until we really want to make a difference and put the resources and the manpower behind this legislation and get it passed in this Legislature.... I think this department is too top-heavy and dealing with other issues that, basically, this government has no authority to be involved in the first place. I think we’re doing stuff the federal government has the legislative authority to do until those authorities are transferred through devolution in regard to the management of land, water and resource development, through that devolution process.

Also, without having the support of the First Nations governments, which a lot of these authorities flow through, I see it not really allowing those legislative agreements to be developed so that they can implement all those sections of those agreements that have been negotiated.

It’s important that as a government we work with those First Nations governments and with those land claim agreements by way of bilateral agreements, to use those as the basis of whatever we’re doing here.

In regard to the other issue, on forestry, I think this government spends too much money in regard to forest management and very little by way of producing a product out of our forest sector. We have potential in communities. In communities I represent, they made a decision several years ago to purchase wood mizers to use the forest products, to cut the product in the regions and use it for housing materials to build people’s homes on the land or even for different community projects. Again, that’s a very unique opportunity for communities. It generates employment. It generates income for a lot of people who are on income support.

More importantly, we are managing the forests by harvesting them and not simply responding to a fire and spending millions of dollars on water bombers and fire support. If anything, we should be doing a better job of developing the forest sector as a unique economic opportunity, as we have with the commercial industries by way of commercial fishing, harvesting and agriculture in the Northwest Territories.

The other issue is around the government’s cuts they’ve made. It seems like it’s easy to cut individuals who are on seasonal employment, who might be lucky to make $20,000 a year as forest fire fighters. Yet those contracts we have in communities with this government, in some cases, are the only means for a lot of people in those communities to bring income to their families to get them through the winter.

Those little things we see happening in our communities are the first things that get cut when government decides to cut budget items. It’s the easy stuff. You guys don’t see it, but we MLAs do, who basically represent these people and know these individuals personally. These people have spent years training for these positions. In regard to fire safety, they’ve gone in some cases all the way to the United States to fight fires on behalf of this government, yet we’re the first ones to cut them when it comes to making cuts in this government.

I totally disagree with that style of cut. If you’re going to cut something, why don’t you cut one of your big water bomber contracts, which is worth in

excess of $18 million, and chip away at that? Save a bunch of positions in our communities and really make a difference by forcing this government to put money into producing from the forestry industry, allowing the communities to economically and socially benefit from the forest sector instead of simply bringing in wood pellets from Alberta, putting them in bags, taking them into our communities and telling people: “Well, sorry. You don’t have to cut wood now because we have a new initiative, and we’re going to import wood pellets from Alberta.”

What’s the difference between that and transporting fuel up a rail system, putting it onto a barge and taking it to our communities, the environmental insanity of that? If anything, we should be promoting people’s harvesting of our forests and the opportunities around our communities by way of taking stock of the potential of our forest sector and forest industry.

People are basically struggling with high-cost issues. Sometimes when this government comes up with some plans, I

wonder if we’re going

backwards in time simply for the benefit of an entrepreneur or businessperson who got the attention of a Minister for the sake of promoting his business; he has a monopoly on an opportunity in northern Canada because he has an item that has the potential of an economic business dollar-sign stamped on it.

Again, I think this government’s process of cutting the jobs and opportunities by way of community fire suppression issues around our communities for safety.... I’m also looking at jobs. So when we get to the appropriate item on the agenda, I’d like to take another crack at it, because I’m not too sure if I’m getting through to this department.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. I failed to mention at our start-up here that, with the support of the committee, I’d like to be consistent and allow general comments to roll up before asking the Minister for a comprehensive response. Is that satisfactory to the committee?

Okay. Thank you. Next I have on the list Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I’d just like to say that I had an opportunity to travel with the Minister over to Fort Simpson back in April. It was a good opportunity to go there and meet with the people and the leadership.

I just want to reiterate some of the concerns we heard as a result of our discussions there. As well, we made it over to Trout Lake, Mr. Chair.

In Simpson initially they wanted to follow up on a couple of long-outstanding items. Most particular

was the biomass assessment, or the forestry inventory, around Fort Simpson. That was a commitment, a long-outstanding commitment. They brought it up with the Minister, so that’s something I’d like to follow up on in our discussions here in Committee of the Whole and to work toward it. It’s very important, having this assessment done, in many respects.

As well, on the eve of the big push to find alternate energy sources, Fort Simpson did bring up with the Minister at that time that they would like to look at different ways of generating energy, and one of them was geothermal. They’re interested in doing a pilot project, testing for the availability of geothermal in Fort Simpson. They’re still developing their proposal. That’s something I

certainly support there, Mr.

Chair, as well as

looking at the geothermal heating potential for Fort Liard. It’s just a matter of the communities needing assistance in putting together the package and being informed about where to send it.

I don’t expect, of course, the GNWT to fund everything. There are lots of federal matching dollars or federal programming out there to assist communities that want to explore alternate energy sources. It’s just having the capacity to deal with it. Our communities are small, and the resources to develop proposals are limited. Working with the department, I believe, was their intent; instead of the department just waiting for a proposal, I think they wanted to work together with the department and explore these many different opportunities.

With respect to the reallocation of the money, I know this department is just over the 9 per cent cutback in their budget. They’re to be commended for that. However, it came at a big cost in order to achieve those targets, and one of them — Mr. Krutko spoke about it — is a reduction in fire suppression. To us in Fort Simpson it means a reduction of two crews: ten people. That’s ten people who aren’t going to be employed in my community of Fort Simpson, and the impact is manyfold there.

One impact is that they look forward to that summer work. They’ve got families who depend on them as well. The hours they do work are credited toward some employment insurance that they can utilize in the wintertime should the winter work season be slow, and that was a benefit of that program.

I’m of the view, too, that I don’t know why they were cut. I think they’re saying that the last couple of years have been good fire seasons. Those are cycles, Mr. Chair, and I don’t know how far back the department should look at that full cycle. We’ve had a couple of good years, but that doesn’t mean that we’re out of the woods, so to speak. You’ve just got to look at the Sahtu Region. They had a couple of

really bad fire seasons in a row, but they had many, many good years, too.

Having the resources available to combat those threats to our land and our resources and to be able to suppress the fires in any of the regions is critical and is our responsibility as a government. I believe we might have been too hasty in reducing in this area, because there are other big cost centres we could have looked at instead of reducing the fire crews. So I’m fundamentally opposed to that, Mr. Chair.

Another cost centre that was the subject of reduction, of course, is regional positions, regional front-line worker positions: a forester in my region as well as a renewable resource officer in Fort Liard. I just want to state for the record, of course, that I’m opposed to that as well, only because I look at the budget, Mr.

Chair, and you see

corresponding growth in the capital, or the headquarters division, of five or six positions.

When we started doing this whole exercise of fiscal restraint and budget reductions, I went on record right away, Mr.

Chair, that we cannot be

centralizing and privatizing. It’s just not good for the communities, and it’s not good for the regions.

If anything, it’s the front-line workers we have to keep in place. Those are the ones who are in touch with the regions, with the communities. They know the people, they know the land, and they are an immense resource. To try to run it out of headquarters, I believe, is not the direction we should be going. I don’t know how many times I have to say it: it’s just not the way we should be doing our work.

When it comes to cutbacks, initially it was about fiscal restraint, but we have shown and we have established that this budget is not about fiscal restraint but about reallocation of resources. Sometimes keeping what we have is a priority. Just because we have an opportunity to reallocate, it’s sometimes not the best way to do things.

Monitoring and utilizing continuous improvement methodology is another way of watching the costs and using best practices in the industry, because they’re always current. There are always new technologies out there that will save us money, and those have to be examined. But cutting out old tried-and-true methods of fire suppression: I really think we should have another good look at that.

Especially in terms of fire suppression – we’re in June, and it’s kind of like mid-year – I would really, really urge the Minister and the Department of ENR that, for goodness’ sake, we’re going to have to revisit this for the next fiscal year.

Just switching gears over to energy conservation, I think we’re on the right track with that. There’s

always more that could be done, but supporting energy conservation through a couple of the programs we have will be beneficial.

I’ll end on that note, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Menicoche. General comments?

Okay. Before proceeding into detail, I’ll call on the Minister for a response to those. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. I’ll quickly go through the list. With the Wildlife Act the intent is, as we’ve indicated, to bring that forward in the life of this government. There was an agreement made, about three years ago now, with the aboriginal governments where we had to work through the Species at Risk Act, where they’d been in gridlock for a number of years. We resolved the process issue, the drafting issues. It’s our intention to come forward next week, hopefully, to be able to table in this House for the first time a draft Species at Risk Act.

We’ll build on that process to do the Wildlife Act. We won’t lose the advantage of all the work that’s been done, though it will have to be updated, and we intend to continue to work very closely with the aboriginal governments, those in the settled areas as well as those in the unsettled areas.

In regard to the Water Strategy, the Mackenzie River basin transboundary agreement is an agreement that does bring together a number of jurisdictions, but it’s 13 years old. There has never yet been a Ministers’ meeting. If you read the act, it leaves out key pieces. It doesn’t include the inclusion of groundwater in the planning of the hydrological cycle.

The framework we’re coming forward with here and that we’ll be briefing committee on and want to table in the House in this sitting is going to lay out our thinking and our suggestions to move forward so we can have northern voices when it comes to dealing with Northern water. Clearly, we have taken the position that while the legal authority may lie mainly with the federal government, we have a moral and political responsibility and authority to act on this issue that’s been identified as critical by the people. We will continue to work very closely with the aboriginal governments as we do this.

When it comes to the issue of forest products, though we’re not in the economic development business, we are clearly interested in the issue of biomass. We think there is huge potential in the communities to provide relief to communities that are now staggering under the burden of the price of diesel and that there is an opportunity to look at a secondary industry as we develop this strategy in terms of replacing diesel-generated electricity with

possible biomass-generated electricity, in addition to people choosing to use wood pellets.

I agree with the Member: there is still a very clear need and benefit to just burning wood and harvesting wood the old, traditional way that has been used for centuries.

To reassure the Member, there is no monopoly. There is no plan for a monopoly to give anybody with an interest in this area any kind of inside track. We’re going to work collectively to develop something that’s good for all communities.

We use value-at-risk to protect the forests so that we can look at property and personal safety and all these types of things. We want to work with all the concerned parties to make sure we put the forest to the best use we can.

The issue of fire crews was one of the reduction areas. There was a study done, which I believe we shared or agreed to share with committee. We’ve reduced from 39 crews to 29 crews. It was not something that was done lightly. There was intense discussion. I appreciate the impact in communities that have had to do fire crew reduction, as well in my community. We have, as well, looked at and have brought forward reductions in our contracts in the use of aircraft to be as efficient and as economical as possible.

In regard to some of the concerns raised by the Member for Nahendeh, we will work with the community in Hay River with the inventory. We’ve talked about that. We’ve re-profiled to hit our targets. The issue of the forester: I believe the Member has been privy to and party to the discussions where we’ve come up with a solution where we can still meet our targets but address the forestry issue and the inventory issue.

We’ve committed, as well, to work with the region and community to see and map out maybe more effectively the geothermal potential in the communities. We understand from what the Members at the meeting told us that Nahendeh, the Liard area especially, is rich with potential, and we’re very interested in doing that.

As we move into the next year’s business planning cycle and once we conclude the fire season, we of course recognize and will put everything up for review in terms of what decisions we’ve tried to come forward with to see how effective they’ve been. It will give us a chance to assess the success of the various directions we’re dealing with.

If I could speak to the issue of growth in headquarters, an issue of concern for every one of us, I believe, especially those of us from outside of Yellowknife. We as well intend to come forward through the business planning process. I’ve had the

same discussion with the deputy about the regions and communities that have been reduced, but we see a handful increase of positions in headquarters. We’re going to do an analysis and come forward, hopefully, with recommendations of some services or positions that could be as capably and adequately doing their jobs outside of Yellowknife. So there’s a commitment here, on the record, that we’ll be bringing that forward in the business planning process.

If I could just speak to the issue of fiscal restraint, if I could just clarify for the record: in my recollection and understanding this is a two-stage process. There was fiscal restraint as well as fiscal reallocation. There was an intent to keep our fiscal house in order, to look at a $60 million reduction in government. At the same time, we wanted to look at a further $75 million reinvestment, moving resources within government to what were the priority areas of the 16th Assembly. So there has

been a two-pronged issue here in dealing with funds, and that is how we’ve been operating.

I appreciate the Member’s comments on energy conservation. There’s a lot of room to improve. We’ve also agreed to work with committee to set up a climate change committee. There’s going to be a Minister and two Members. The terms of reference, I believe, are going to the committee, which will allow us to provide a lot of good, clear advice to the other tables that are impacted: the Energy Coordinating Committee, the managing the land committee. We can look at things like the Energy Plan, the Greenhouse Gas Strategy and those types of things.

We have a very interesting and challenging agenda, Mr.

Chairman, and I appreciate the

opportunity to make some comments.

Thank you very much, Minister. Mr. Krutko.

I’d like to ask the Minister, since he seems like he’s open to reinstating positions: are you going to reinstate all the positions? I know I have a couple of forestry positions in my riding; I’d like to have them reinstated too. In order to do that, are you open to looking at those positions? These people have been with the forestry division for years. For them this is their career, and you’re wiping their livelihood out. I just heard you stating you’re willing to consider reinstating other areas.

If you’re not flexible here, maybe we’ll have to cut something out and look at, maybe, the forest management centre in Fort Smith. The question that has always come up is: why do we have a forest management centre that basically operates year-round? People are working in the middle of winter. Why couldn’t you shut that down for a

couple of months in the middle of the winter when there are no real forest issues out there and have them work when they’re supposed to be working, which is the summer months?

Maybe that can be considered as a savings for this government. Reinstate those dollars back into these positions with the individuals’ livelihood you got rid of. I just noted you’ve made a reference that you’re willing to reinstate in some areas, so I’d like to know. If you’re going to reinstate in some areas, you’d better reinstate in all areas.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister, in response.