Yes, Mr. Chair.

Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witness in. Is committee agreed he brings in his witnesses?

Thank you. Mr. Minister, for the record, could you introduce your witness?

Michael Aumond, deputy minister of Municipal and Community Affairs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Welcome, witness. We agreed we’ll move on to Municipal and Community Affairs. I’m looking at the department summary, page 4-2 that we’ll defer to page 4-4. Page 4-4, Municipal and Community Affairs, activity summary, regional operations, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $28.002 million. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to mention again the issue of building codes and our lack of requiring such codes when we transfer this funding to communities. It’s perhaps a sensitive situation in a way, but we have these high standards for ourselves and with that we enjoy the returns and the benefits that that brings. Our operational costs are going down, we’re now saving millions of dollars per year and yet we’re not providing our communities with that same opportunity by requiring that level of building standard.

Now, I recognize that we are, in the longer term, requiring communities to come up with their energy plans and integrated community sustainability plans and so on, but there are no requirements for those building standards to be in those plans. Hopefully the department is profiling this and sharing our experience with them, but it’s almost as if our communities are our poor cousins and we’re not too worried about them having the same benefits and opportunities we enjoy by requiring these standards, and it’s committing them to a fossil fuel future and that’s an expensive future, which limits the options that they have to make best use of their dollars. So I’m wondering if we are planning on putting this requirement in or whether we’re going to continue to let the unfortunately slow progress of developing a bunch of community energy plans that may or may not have these standards in them for our communities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Robert C. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Member’s concern. As you pointed out, we are working with communities to have their energy plans and we can’t assume that the communities are incapable of building infrastructure that would be to their advantage to build it according to the highest standards possible. I think we’re starting to see that in a lot of the communities. They understand the savings that they could potentially make. So we’re starting to see that. We’ll continue to work with them and encourage them to look at the standards that they’re building. But I’m fairly confident and I’ve always been confident in the communities’ ability to build good practical infrastructure that would take advantage of all the energy savings possible. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the Minister’s confidence in the communities and so on, but you need to base that on evidence. It may be improving, but it’s improving very slowly, as evidenced by, for example, the completion of I believe it’s three community energy plans out of our 33 communities.

We are finessing our communities into a fossil fuel future and that is something we can no longer tolerate as a society. We know what the costs are. There is no excuse for that anymore. Simply putting in these building standards will plug that hole immediately and bring immediate benefits to the communities.

We know, for example, that our public housing has now got an EnerGuide for houses 80 standard, very high quality standards, and we are building those in all our communities frequently and the communities are building those units for us. So the expertise is out there. In fact, we’ve built R2000 units years ago in the communities. So there is experience, there is the capability. What we need to do is put those standards in place as a condition when we transfer these dollars and start helping them enjoy the immediate benefits of that. Thank you.

We’ll continue to work with the communities and ensure that they are looking at building the highest standard. I would hesitate to go as far as imposing it on them. I mean, we can encourage and support them and we’ve tried to devolve a lot of the responsibility of local infrastructure. We’re able to do that with, as the Member mentioned, the Housing Corporation, and we’re able to do that because we basically control the capital dollars so we can impose standards on them as far as the communities go.

I’ll stick to my guns and say that I’m absolutely confident. The communities know best for themselves what’s good for them and if they realize that they can make a significant saving with the money that they’re receiving from the government by building infrastructure that is of the highest quality, I believe they will do that and I believe we’ve seen a few examples of that already happening. So I think we’ll continue to see in the future a lot higher standard buildings being built by the communities, and then they’ll be able to reap the rewards and not use as much of their O and M money to pay for upkeep of these buildings. Thank you.

Of course, there’s probably nothing I could do to prevent the Minister from sticking to his guns. It’s just, you know, a very irresponsible position to take, decision to make.

The best example I can think of is the youth centres, for example, that we are training our youth to have absolutely no respect for the natural world and their future when we build youth centres that you can see daylight under the doors, and don’t have porches and some of the very basic principles

of energy conservation, not to mention the high costs associated with that and the lack of ability to pursue other options with those dollars that they are blowing off into the air.

So I am very pleased to hear that there are a few examples that the Minister can think of high efficiency, but I think we have a responsibility to move on this and I will keep trying to help him see the light of day on this. Thank you.

I appreciate the Member’s concern for the small communities and the infrastructure that they are building in the communities. I don’t think it’s irresponsible of us. I think it’s very responsible of us to work with the communities and ensure that they are building buildings of the highest standard, and I believe they are doing that.

I said before, we can’t assume that the communities are incapable of making good decisions that affect their own infrastructure without us imposing it on them, and I will continue to hold that position unless I hear differently from the communities that maybe we do need to think of imposing this on them. Until then, I would suggest that we will continue to work with the communities ensuring that their infrastructure is of the highest standard, and I am confident in their ability to put good products on the ground. Thank you.

Again, these dollars that we’re transferring to communities are investments. I am the first to get in line in terms of transferring responsibilities to our communities. We want to do it in a responsible way and I know when I make investments personally, and I suspect most people do this, they make sure that it’s done in a responsible manner and in a manner that gets the better dollar for the buck, the best value for the dollar; recognizing, of course, that you are not just making the investments for the benefit only of the entity that’s receiving the dollars. You have the benefits of all of your family or the Northwest Territories, in this case, much beyond communities.

So we have a new Minister here still. Perhaps there is room to be working on that. Thank you.

I am not sure if there was a question there. I think it was more of a comment. As I said, we appreciate the Member’s comments and his concern for the welfare of the small communities.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, have similar concerns as Mr. Bromley, but I think realizing it’s not only the requirements that we are putting on communities with regard to developing energy plans and looking at infrastructure, but also capacity for communities, especially when this was being implemented to give communities more ability

to make decisions and invest in our capital. I think we overlooked a few things in that process and one of them is the incorporation of communities.

We are finding now that eight communities aren’t able to access capital dollars because they’re not incorporated. I think it’s important that that step should have been solved before we made the decision to transfer all of those authorities to all communities in the Northwest Territories, and made sure that they were incorporated and made sure they had the capacity to take it on. More importantly, that they have the infrastructure in the communities to be able to sustain such a transfer. So I would just like to ask the Minister of Finance or MACA, what are we doing to ensure that through these dollars, they are being accessed by these communities -- all communities, 33 communities -- to be fair to all communities and we are not holding back money simply because they’re not incorporated?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Robert C. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are addressing the need for capacity and we have heard the Member’s concerns. We are working with HR, as I announced, to develop a strategy for communities to train and retain. A lot of the people that work in the communities and actually had a meeting with members of LGANT this afternoon and there were probably three-quarters of the SAOs in the Territories at this meeting. There were some band communities there, and the band communities are the ones we are working with right now to form development corporations so they can own real property. We’ve made a lot of progress and the bands are realizing it’s in their best interest to form these dev corps, and then the money would start flowing to them and then they would be able to decide on the infrastructure in their community.

I have not heard yet from any community in the Northwest Territories that has said don’t give us this money, we can’t handle it. We’ve had communities saying we need some help and the regional offices are very good about going out and helping the communities, but I have had no one say yet that this is not a good idea.

This is something that many of us who have lived in small communities and who have served on small community councils realized at the time we were a very small speck in the overall government picture, and our local infrastructure, which was important to us, once it was buried in the corporate plan, we had to wait a long time to see anything on the ground. Now with all the money that is flowing to the communities, they know best what is a priority in their communities and they know best the infrastructure they need right away. There are some challenges, but I think for the most part those

challenges are being addressed. The communities are adapting very well to the new responsibility they have. Thank you.

I’ll try to repeat the question. My question is that there were eight communities that were not incorporated and would not be able to spend their capital investment dollar because they were not incorporated. They did not have the ability to own assets. I think for ourselves, as a government, before we made this transfer, that problem should have been solved and not told sorry, you are getting a bunch of Building Canada funds but you can’t spend it because you are not incorporated. That is the issue. I think as a government, that should have been solved or find ways to mitigate the problem so we don’t have to go through the problem of having to tell people sorry, we have your money in a bank, but you can’t access it because we don’t think you’ve got your driver’s licence yet. That’s exactly what this scenario is turning out to be.

We can give money to NGOs, we can give money to non-government organizations, no questions asked. But when it comes to communities, because you are a band council, you can’t own assets. For me, that is the issue I am talking about here. Again, if there are capital dollars being allocated to all the communities, they should be spent by those communities and not held back because of public red tape. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Aumond.

Another issue I have a problem with especially in regards to capital, is that we seem to put the onus on communities that any assets that this government transferred to the community, it is up to them to repair it, fix it. If it breaks down, that is your problem.

I think this government has to realize that a lot of these assets that we did transfer to communities are going to have to be replaced. But with the existing dollars that they get, you cannot replace a water treatment plant. You cannot replace a major piece of infrastructure like a utilidor system with the existing dollars that they have. But as government departments, we know that every time the government department has an issue, it is either a forced growth issue or basically, well, because of emergency circumstances where we have a culvert collapse or basically a bunch of pilings are falling down around a building. We find funds for those things, because they are so-called emergencies.

I think there has to be some sort of capital funding project for communities to access similar to the question I raised today, shoreline erosion in the community. Shoreline erosion should not be the responsibility of the community. If anything, it should be a government obligation to ensure we protect communities by emergency funding resources so that they are treated just like any other government department. I think, for myself, it is something that I feel quite strongly about, especially communities that have systems that basically have to be replaced.

I use Fort McPherson for instance. They have a water utilidor system. Inuvik had a utilidor system. There is a major capital influx to change that system in regards to capital dollars from this government. But yet, for the communities that have utilidor systems, now it is their obligation to find those capital dollars.

Another example is water treatment plants. We had five water treatment plants replaced. Thankfully, MACA hung onto it and did it as a project for the bulk of those projects, so they delivered. But again, that is the role government has to retain and play in regards to capital expenditures in communities to ensure there are emergency funds or disaster relief in regards to forest fires, like I mentioned, major floods. We see it every other year in most of our communities. It is a capital cost associated with that, but we can’t leave the communities hanging there without having assurance from the government that there are going to be emergency situations where this government will come in to help. I would just like to know, under disaster relief or whatever we want to call it, that capital dollars are going to be there when those incidents happen and it won’t come out of the municipalities’ pocket. It will come out of the government’s pocket. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Robert C. McLeod.