Madam Chair, it doesn’t answer the question but, yes. I think we continue to see our energy dollars decrease when the need is, in fact, increasing and there is an opportunity to redirect the funds that we’re no longer using to subsidize energy to put into energy initiatives. I’m very disappointed if the Minister did not try to capture some of those dollars here.
I think the point is, hydro we know is expensive. It has serious frontend costs, but it’s also self-financing. It’s typically very long lived, 50 to 70 years. We have an opportunity, if we were to capture these dollars. The difference between $17 million and $9 million or whatever, that is significant when it comes to a modest-sized hydro operation given that we don’t need to pay it all up front. These are opportunities that continue to slide by as we spend, I would say, literally millions of dollars studying the situation rather than focusing on one and getting it done, one that is an appropriate size for our needs and communities.
On that, I think it’s not just our communities we should be looking at. Our communities are very important and it helps with the cost of living, but another perspective is that our industry requires energy and they are typically associated with one community or another, often thermal communities. There is another opportunity to help deal with some of the frontend costs. Again, I just don’t see that happening. I will leave that as a comment.
I have one more comment. The Department of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, you know what is going to happen to energy when it is in such a department. I think we stressed, as committee, the need to have a Department of Energy that actually brings the focus as needed to the issue. But lodge such an issue in a department that deals with energy, mines and petroleum development, we know exactly what’s committed to the future on our energy concerns. It’s unfortunately more of the same.
I just wanted to register those comments and welcome any response from the Minister. Mahsi.
