I see that the amount still is going up rather significantly despite having those people on staff, so hopefully next year we can see that trend reversed. Thank you. Just a comment.

Thank you. There is no question there. It is just a comment. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.

Just in regards to your geographical information systems in regards to data systems, I think that we have to realize with the technology we have these days that we could use those systems for more than just forest fire management. We should be able to use those systems in regards to identifying the wintering grounds of the caribou or looking at the change in vegetation. I think that there are things that you can use, if you use this system for other areas, than simply looking at forest management. Are these systems used in other areas to look at things such as the water in regards to the water issues in regards to water levels in the different lakes or looking at the different types of vegetation or looking at the things in regards to possibly identifying the wintering grounds of caribou or even the different animal species? I think that you probably can use this system for a lot more than just simply forest management during the summer months to monitor forest fires.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Miltenberger.

Mr. Chairman, we try to multi-use these systems as much as we can. There are a lot of specific issues with the resolution of the equipment, what is capable by the satellite in terms of our satellites, by taking pictures. Some of the big computers that we have that have these enormous memories for maps and the information systems, we try to put that to as many uses as possible, not just with forestry but where there are opportunities with the wildlife, as the

Member has indicated. Some of it is not transferable, but where it is, we try to do that. Thank you.

Even nowadays with Google Earth, you can almost pinpoint anything around the world. If you want to find someone’s cabin in the middle of nowhere, you can almost find it now with the systems and the technologies. They are so accurate nowadays; you are able to identify a lot of the systems with just basically using those types of system. I know for a fact that you can talk to somebody over the phone and they can just get on the computer and you can sort of illustrate where the river crossings are or look at where the cabins are or even look at where there are granular materials and whatnot without even having to put a foot on the ground. I think that this government should look at that as possibly a cost savings if we use the system and have it more user friendly, that we can use it in all different venues instead of simply just one area. I think that I would like to know, is there a possibility of looking at a study to see exactly how compatible this system is and is it capable of doing these other functions than simply just buy a high-tech system for one use.

We would be happy to provide committee with a brief couple pages to lay out the systems that we do have and of their multi-use and what use we do make of things like Google Earth. I think it is high definition enough. I agree with the Member on those things where there are fixed resources that we are looking at. A lot of the Google Earth information that I have used or seen is not live. It is refreshed periodically. I would be prepared to provide that to committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. We are moving on to Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just trying to get a bit of clarification. You talked about our Mackenzie River Basin water management stuff we are doing. Is this $65,000 that is identified here the only money that we, as the GNWT, are putting towards a transboundary water agreement? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Minister Miltenberger.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I am obviously a little concerned about the water in the Mackenzie Basin with the tar sands directly upstream from us and the toxic tar ponds that they have in close proximity to the river. We have already been able to notice, and we have seen, that individuals in Fort Chip, by

example, the cancer rates have been going up. I have seen photos myself of incredibly ugly fish out of the river that is just downstream from where the toxic tar ponds are. I don’t think most people in Alberta are that concerned, because the vast majority of the people live upstream and/or are completely outside of the basin altogether. Research I have done has shown that if any one of these toxic tar ponds were to ever break loose, we in the Northwest Territories would be the ones who would suffer the most. That is obviously a concern to me. I think $65,000, when I think that amount, it seems like a lot of money, but we need a transboundary water agreement with some teeth, something that will actually make a difference, not caving in to Alberta completely.

I understand that Alberta has done some things recently. They have changed some of their regulations around water usage which is going to limit the tar sands producers to some degree, but that is only going to be a positive benefit to us if, in fact, their exploration and extraction does not increase from where it is and that glaciers continue to provide plenty of water, which we don’t believe will with the amount that the glaciers have melted. At some point it is going to have a significant impact on the water flowing to the Northwest Territories. Like I said, if any of these toxic ponds were to have a major breach, and I do know that the majority of them are a little ways from the river so it would take quite a bit to get into the river in raw form, but if any of them were to breach and get into the river, we’d have some major, major, major ramifications in the Northwest Territories. It could, in fact, kill the basin. The 2,364 people in Fort Smith would be the first people in the Northwest Territories to experience the negative aspects of a breach of the tar sand toxic ponds into us. Then we’ve got 484 in Fort Res who would obviously be next. We’ve got a significant number of people in Lutselk’e, Ndilo, Dettah, Yellowknife, Hay River and Hay River Reserve who technically live on Great Slave Lake. Great Slave Lake is the fifth largest lake in North America and the deepest one in North America. Just recently, DIAND did some studies out in the East Arm in the deepest part of the lake and were able to identify new species of fish. That’s in the area that’s soon going to be a new national park for the Northwest Territories. If those tailings ponds break, that toxic water will flow into Great Slave Lake and all of us who live around it are going to be negatively affected.

It’s not just going to be us; it’s going to be the people in Fort Providence who are the first people on the river who are going to get hit by the toxic water that’s making its way down to the Beaufort Sea. There are 727 people who live on the shore right in Fort Providence itself. We’ve got 1,216 who live on the shore of the river in Fort Simpson. There

are 122 in Wrigley, 505 in Tulita, 761 in Norman Wells and 557 in Fort Good Hope. All these people are going to be severely affected by the toxic water flowing down our river. That river is the lifeblood of the Mackenzie Valley and if we can’t fish in it, if we can’t hunt alongside it, if the animals that are relying on the river to survive are poisoned by the toxic ponds, we, as 44,000 people in the Territories, all lose. Those aren’t the only ones. We’ve got a couple communities along the river that aren’t on the Mackenzie River itself like Tsiigehtchic, Fort McPherson, Aklavik; the last two are on the Peel River. But ultimately the Mackenzie is still a lifeblood for them as well and if this leaks we’ve got a problem...Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk are two of the last ones that are going to be affected by any leaking of these toxic tar ponds.

The reason that I bring all that up is because $65,000 doesn’t sound like an awful lot of money. How can we ensure that whatever we develop by way of the transboundary water agreement is going to have the teeth required to actually protect the 44,000 people who live in the Northwest Territories? We don’t sound like much. I don’t think Alberta is really that concerned about us. I think they think about their bitumen production and their extraction of that stuff from the tar sands and I think they think to themselves, no biggie, it’s only 44,000 people, billions of dollars, everything will be alright. But I look around this room and there isn’t one person who isn’t going to be affected.

To the Minister: What are we doing and how are we ensuring that our transboundary water agreement will have the teeth required to protect the people of the Northwest Territories? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First and foremost, we’ve been working very hard for the last 14 or 15 months on the Water Strategy. Between ourselves and INAC we’re going to have spent, by the time we’re finished, about $800,000 to do this what I believe will be the best of its kind Water Strategy in the country that will give us all the key principles and elements of a comprehensive water strategy of what’s required right from the groundwater, surface water and everywhere in between; precipitation, flows, the whole complex area of water. It will give us the best policy base to go forward to negotiate our bilateral with the Mackenzie River Basin Transboundary Agreement which, while it is not perfect, is the only instrument we do have.

The $65,000 is our share that we put in along with money put in by Yukon, Saskatchewan, Alberta, B.C., and ourselves. We have been saying now, since we got elected and we’re trying to have a meeting with the Mackenzie River Basin Board, that we should be at least increasing our contribution by half, if not double -- every jurisdiction -- to give the

Mackenzie River Basin Board the resources to do business. They operate now, and have since 1997, on a budget of about just a shade over a quarter-million dollars a year, which, given the magnitude of the river basin, one of the biggest in North America, is a very miniscule amount of money.

We recognize that there’s a need to rejuvenate the Mackenzie River Basin Board and that’s one of our key intents. We’ve raised water at every meeting we’ve been at. We’ve had a partial meeting of the Mackenzie River Basin Board to try to get them together when I was in Whitehorse recently. We couldn’t get all the members there, but I talked to Minister Renner and he indicated, yes, we do have to gather.

I just want to assure the Member...He uses the phrase “cave in completely to Alberta.” I can assure the Member that our intention is to take all the steps necessary to protect the interests of the Northwest Territories. One of the reasons we’re going to be effective at this is because we’re going to have spent the time and money on a good strategy. We are going to have, as our strategy is titled, Northern Voices on Northern Water. We intend and hope to have all the aboriginal governments with us, shoulder to shoulder, as we look at the transboundary issues we have to deal with. We will be negotiating with these folks in Alberta and in B.C. and in Saskatchewan.

Very clearly we recognize now, more than we did in 1997, the complexity of the whole issue of water and we looked at things that have been done around the world. I’ve read information about what’s happened in the Nile with the seven countries trying to negotiate water agreements, bilaterals versus multilaterals, things that have taken hundreds of years, wars that have been fought over this issue. So we recognize very clearly, as a downstream jurisdiction, that we have an enormous responsibility. We are going to discharge that, we believe, effectively. Thank you.

Just to be clear, I’m not meaning to criticize Alberta too much. I know since that major bird kill last year in the tar ponds that they have gone a long way to making differences in how they’re actually treating their water and treating the tar ponds themselves. I think that’s good. Like I said, they have made some improvements to the legislation. It’s more the companies that I’m worried about. I think it will be easier for the oil production companies in the tar sands to beg forgiveness than ask permission as they destroy the water in the Mackenzie Basin, which causes me some concern.

My last question, seeing as how I’m running out of time, can you tell me what role the National Water Strategy will play in meeting our goals as the Northwest Territories? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There is one area of water that has yet to be tested in the courts that will be a major defining area and that is as we go forward in the North, and in every jurisdiction but in northern Alberta as well, and that’s the issue of the aboriginal rights when it comes to water, through treaties, land claims, self-government agreements where it’s been built in through negotiations. We believe that the opportunity is there working collectively to present a very good, effective case to Alberta.

The National Water Strategy, we are of the opinion, we’re one water basin, but every section of the country has issues with water; that there is a leadership role that should be provided by the federal government that is not currently there at a national level. It’s been identified in every jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter if you look at the St. Lawrence, if you look at Ontario where Walkerton happened, you look at southern Alberta where they’re water-stressed and things are going to get worse. We need to have standards. We need to have a national strategy because of issues like resource development, inter-jurisdictional issues, but also international issues as they pertain to the border with the Americans, for example, and where we share common watersheds and the demand under NAFTA and all these other places, agreements where there may be pressures put on our water systems.

We have been active proponents that not only do we need to be organized through Mackenzie River Basin but that Mackenzie River Basin is not separate from the prairie provinces water board area in southern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan. They’re linked and they’re tied in Manitoba. Groundwater is an area, for example, that has not been thoroughly mapped across the country. The aquifers, if they’re like the United States, cross a multitude of states; in our case, cross a multitude of provinces and territories. Absolutely, we need a National Water Strategy. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. I have next on the list, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple of questions on this page. One of them has to do with the term “field support.” I understand the department is establishing a field support unit and I was wondering if I could get a bit of an explanation as to what this unit is going to do. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Miltenberger.

Mr. Chairman, we’re on 13 or 14?

We should be on page 13-13. I’ll call now on Minister Miltenberger.

Sorry, Mr. Chair. My enthusiasm here. They used to deal with compliance and have been renamed field units, but I’ll get the deputy to speak to that issue.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bohnet.

Thank you, Mr. Bohnet. Ms. Bisaro.