Thank you, Mr. Guy. Mr. Dolynny.

I do appreciate the response. It sounds like we are moving in a direction or we make this retrofit equipment. I am thinking more or less along desktops and laptops. These things have some usability here, but I still think there is a bit of confusion as to where we can source this.

If it is in a major centre like Yellowknife, how do the small communities have access to our warehouse here? Can someone dial in? Is there an inventory list with pictures?

Would the government look at facilitating and getting that equipment to the smaller communities that may not find a home here in Yellowknife so that we are truly recycling all of our equipment properly throughout the Northwest Territories? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Abernethy.

Madam Chair, as a Regular Member I had an opportunity to travel to Ulukhaktok. When we were in Ulukhaktok, we met with the school. They had a significant number of computers that were actually old government computers from Yellowknife. They got there through the Computers for Schools program. There are a number of ways that different groups make requests to the department on a fairly regular basis. When we have stock, we are happy to work with them to dispose of it. We have also had situations where MLAs have come to us indicating that there are some needs in a community. Can we use old computers? We will work with them on that. We are open to anybody approaching us to obtain these old assets for schools and other community benefitting opportunities.

It sounds like we have what I call pull technology, where people have to come to the government to pull that information or extract that information as to what is available from the evergreening process. Would the government

consider a department in creating a push technology which they allow everyone to see what is available that has been retrofitted, a website design or something where people can dial in, these NGOs can dial in and say, you know what, I will take those four computers, and would the government then assist in getting those at a reasonable cost to an NGO, schools or whatever organization that could use them in a real easy push-pull type system? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Certainly it is an interesting idea. I will talk to the department. I will talk to the TSC to find out what might be the best way to make sure that people have information and people understand that there is product available should they choose, and where we go from there, certainly address them working with communities and schools to get those products out to them.

There are no further questions. Do we have any further questions on this section, page 5-7? Does committee agree that we are done Public Works and Services, activity summary, Technology Service Centre, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $1.560 million?

Thanks, committee. We will go to page 5-10, Public Works and Services, activity summary, petroleum products division, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $3.776 million. Mr. Bromley.

For several years we pushed for Public Works and Services to examine this division with the potential or the possibility of incorporating a wood pellet purchase, transport and storage distribution system. I was very pleased to see the department actually conduct research on that question and produce a fairly positive report on it. In the report they detailed that wood pellet heat in almost all of the roaded communities was in the order of 50 to 60 percent of fuel oil cost, so a huge savings to be had. Although there were other roaded communities, winter-roaded communities, where the most remote community had a savings of a modest 7 percent compared to fuel oil. Obviously, switching to biomass from fuel oil would bring great savings to the high cost of living in these communities which is typically very high, especially compared to our larger centres. If biomass was available, that might be realized, and especially, again, if there was assistance from government to switch over, that would enable such benefits to be realized by residents and local businesses.

They reported rates. They have compared to fuel oil, but they didn’t talk about really reduced storage costs and related contaminant cleanups of fossil fuels compared to the sawdust that wood pellets are typically made of. Yet, I am led to understand

that there is a refusal of the department to follow up on the clear opportunities that were identified to assist residents and businesses in the small communities where private enterprise does not have the capacity to provide this service or to compete with the subsidized fuel oil provided by Public Works and Services.

I am wondering if this is still the case or if they have seen the light here. If not, why are they not pursuing these opportunities in this day and age when we see the opportunity for 30 to 40 percent savings on our fuel bills, especially in the high cost communities? It is nothing to be sneezed at. Why would we not pursue this opportunity to manage that cost of living as well as, as Minister Miltenberger said earlier today, actually manage? We claim that we are managing greenhouse gas emissions. Here is a real opportunity to make this significant end.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Abernethy.

Madam Chair, the facts that the Member has just read out are consistent with the report that we provided. We agree with the Member completely. The challenge and the reason we are not pursuing changing over any of our current facilities to biomass at this time, is in the 16 communities that we are the provider of petroleum products, there isn’t actually demand for pellets now.

I know the obvious argument is, well, if you bring it, they will provide or they will utilize it, but in the meantime we would have facilities and structures that are sitting unused; whereas right now we have significant demands for the oil product in those 16 communities.

We have to make sure that those tanks are safe. We have to make sure that they are to code. We have to make sure that they are full so that people can have automotive and home fuel.

We have limited budgets. We need to continue to provide the product in those 16 communities that are currently in demand. We will continue as a government to do activities that will help us encourage people to utilize different product.

We ourselves are going down that road. We are turning over boilers to pellet and biomass on a regular basis. We have a Capital Asset Retrofit Fund. As the markets turn, we may get to a position where we are a provider of pellets or other biomass in those 16 communities, but we are not there yet. Right now there is no plan to change any of those communities into anything other than biomass. When they are, we will be in a position to change our product and meet their demand.

Right now, in PPD, we are the provider. We have to provide what the market is demanding. We have to make sure they have enough to get through our

long, cold winters and that they have enough fuel for their snow machines so that they can go hunting. We need to make sure that product is there, and we are committed to getting that product there safely, and we’re committed to storing it safely, and we’re committed to distribute it to the people in the communities safely.

I don’t really accept that argument. The demand is not there because the pellets are not there. In every one of our communities, of course, we have government facilities and they would also benefit and easily be able to contribute to any additional costs of this program. Recognizing that the department would have to struggle with the up-front costs of replacing those boilers in government facilities and so on. When we’re talking about 30 percent, 40 percent and greater savings, 45 percent, 48 percent savings, the payback times on those have been demonstrated to be quite effective and we do have a borrowing capacity. When there are those sorts of returns, I suspect that’s considered a wise investment. It does require some work and I commend the department for doing the study, but then to ignore the huge possibility here for savings is still perplexing.

To say there’s no demand, well, we have broad government goals here, one of which is to enjoy environmental benefits and reduce the cost of living. Go out and create the demand by supplying the pellets. That alone would not be a big cost, obviously. I guess I would just, I have heard the Minister. I realize it’s not easy but I would urge him to not put it on the back burner and to begin working on how to get this done during the life of this Assembly.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I didn’t really hear a question there. I’ll go to the Minister for comment if he wishes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m listening closely and I believe we are wanting to get to the same place, the Member and I. I think we have slightly different opinions on how to get there.

This department and the government are focusing on supporting the demand, helping to create demand. We are becoming purchasers of pellet boilers and other biomass product on a regular basis.

The Department of Public Works and Services is an active member participating on the development of a Biomass Strategy. We are focusing much of our investment on actually utilizing the product and creating demand in the communities.

As far as being a supplier of pellets in those 16 communities, we need to make sure there’s demand there. We need to make sure that we have an opportunity to put in machine boilers and

whatnot. But this is a big territory, and there are 33 communities and every community has some demand, and we’re hitting those communities where we can get maximum benefit and build on those. Some of those smaller communities, there isn’t a demand right now. We need to work our way there and that’s going to happen. It’s going to take some time in some of the smaller communities.

We are focused on trying to reduce our costs and we will over time. But to put biomass storage in those 16 communities when there’s no demand doesn’t seem like the right investment now. Investing in actually utilizing and putting in pellet systems where there is a market and getting the immediate benefits on both greenhouse gas emissions and costs seems like a better investment of money up front. We will get, over time, to where the Member wants us to get. It will take time.

I would just say that this government has a strong focus on internal operations and we’re doing a good job there, but when we see a real opportunity for engaging the public and assisting them in taking on our goals and enjoying the benefits of it, we seem to fail. We have a record of failure there. As long as we continue to think that way, that’s the way it will be. This government will enjoy the costs or benefits that we’re getting but we won’t achieve the broad government goals because we’re a small part of northern society.

I understand the Minister’s comments and I say it’s not so much how as when, and the failure to recognize that we need to engage the public to help us achieve our goals. We cannot do it ourselves simply working internally. Just a comment again.

Once again the Member and I agree; the government cannot do this ourselves. Fortunately, the private sector businesses presently sell and distribute pellets and pellet fuel in communities where significant market demand exists. In fact, in Yellowknife, if we remember, some of the first pellets systems that the government were involved with were driven by the market in our corrections facilities.

The private enterprise is a valuable partner in this particular area. They have been a leader in this area and we want to continue to work with them and we’d like to see business continue to push hard in this area. It’s a win-win for everybody. So we don’t believe that we’re the only player in the game. We don’t think we should be the only player in the game. We’d like to see industry continue to step up like they have. They’ve done some amazing things here in the North.

Obviously, the Minister is circuitous now in his thinking. Private enterprise would be providing fuel in our communities if that was the case. The reason we are in these 16

communities is because private enterprise is not there to do that.

Can the Minister say, with a straight face, that at 40 percent savings on your fuel bill, there would not be the demand if that form of fuel was there and you had a choice between the two?

If the question was as simple as that, it wouldn’t be that hard to agree. There’s more to it than that and the Member knows that.

We can put the pellets in, but until people start purchasing and have the money to actually put in their own pellet heating systems – which we all know a pellet boiler in a house is probably $20,000 even with the subsidies that are available through organizations like Arctic Energy Alliance – many people in the small communities aren’t going to be able to afford those anyway. We need to work with the communities to help them create a market. When the demand is there, we would absolutely be interested in putting those facilities to provide pellets.

With no market and a strong demand for diesel and gasoline, we have to provide what the people need to heat their homes to be safe, to be warm, to use their snowmobiles to go hunting, to get out on the land, to transport themselves around the communities. There are demands for those products that we have to provide. Even with biomass we’re never going to be completely out of the business unless somebody in private enterprise decides to go into those communities and provide, because we’re still going to need aviation and automotive fuel.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Are there any further questions on this section? Mr. Bromley could probably question us for the rest of the afternoon. Seeing no further, Public Works and Services, activity summary, petroleum products division, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $3.776 million.

If we would return to the department summary on page 5-2, Public Works and Services, department summary, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $24.536 million.

Does committee agree that we are concluded the Department of Public Works and Services?