Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next for general comments I have Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to follow up with Ms. Bisaro’s comment about the status of this budget staying the same since 2000 at $28 million. I think operational costs have certainly become a challenge and I know the Minister was dead on with that, but unfortunately, I think the expenses, general expenses, part of that equation means that infrastructure expense costs have escalated quite considerably at the same time. For example, I think our Minister of Finance has told us that we used to spend $75 million in our capital budget and we were happy to do that when we could achieve it, and that probably was about 2000 or maybe even a few years later than the year 2000 when we set this at $28 million. As everybody knows, we’re up regularly over $150 million, typically over $200 million. So there is a disconnect here.

I have to disagree with the total perspective that the Minister presented that it’s just operational costs. I think, in fact, the cost of putting infrastructure on the ground without even operating it has escalated considerably over that period of time. Just by way of supporting Ms. Bisaro’s concern that we hear from communities that the $28 million was welcome, the new approach was welcomed, but the amount just doesn’t seem to be having the same capacity that it used to. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There is a full formula review underway right now including the infrastructure dollars, and we’re targeting ’16-17 as probably the earliest we can make the increases. Then we try and access any other monies that we’re able to through the Building Canada Plan and any other monies, the gas tax money. I mean, if there is any opportunity for us as a government – and we’re getting quite good at it – trying to access any pots of money so we can pull it into the Territories and distribute it to the communities, they’ve done a pretty good job with that. The review is underway and we’re targeting ’16-17.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. General comments. Next I have Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much. I raise the same concerns about getting an increment in the capital expenditures in MACA and a couple years is probably not soon enough for some of the communities out there that have growing infrastructure needs.

Aside from that, I just wanted to ask the question about the Wrigley water plant and what’s the process there. I know that’s not in this capital plan but it’s an old Build Canada funding. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I’ll refer that question to Ms. Young, please.

Okay. So just with the change in scope, is it still manageable within whatever capital they had allotted?

Thank you, Ms. Young. General comments. Next I have Mr. Yakeleya.

Just a short comment there, Madam Chair. It’s just with the increase of the infrastructure in the communities. It’s very interesting to hear the Minister talk about further discussions and the formula funding. Of interest, I want to raise the point of type of infrastructure that possibly could be needed in the town of Norman Wells with the increase of the oil and gas activity and that sort of being the regional staging area for the oil and gas companies in regard to the different activity that’s going to happen this year and next year. Is that something that the government is looking at, that type of funding to support the town of Norman Wells on their infrastructure and the use of oil companies using their additional infrastructure, which is sewer and wastage in other areas that the town may not have the dollars to support that?

Also, along with some of the infrastructure that’s going into the communities, communities are starting to prioritize their needs, because they’re only getting so much money a year and they want to do many things. However, as you go further up north, the cost of living is high and the cost of doing business is high there. Is that something that’s considered in the formula?

I know there’s a formula, I just don’t quite understand it well enough there, and you don’t need to explain it to me now. Is that something that MACA has considered? I think that’s something that the community is getting used to, and when they take over some of the infrastructure, they don’t quite yet know if that’s a good thing or until they fully understand what it means to take over some of the infrastructure. They are planning some of their work out for themselves and it’s quite costly. Those are the points I wanted to raise. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ve worked closely with the communities, and communities have provided us with their five-year capital plan, because they realize how much they’re getting over the next number of years so they do a good job in prioritizing their investments over the next five years. I was looking at them, actually earlier this morning, and they’ve done a great job in some of their priorities and even

recognizing the fact that with development coming and that, you know, we’ve got to be ready for it. Again, it’s a decision that the community government makes.

We have assistant superintendents that we’ve hired in each of the regions and they are going to help – especially the one in Norman Wells – with identifying some of the challenges that may come as a result of resource development, so they will be in a good position to provide some advice and work with the community as to where some of their needs might be. But the community knows their needs better than we do and they do a good job in addressing it through their capital plans that they submitted to MACA.

Certainly, the Minister is correct on the needs are addressed by the community that knows it best in those communities, and sometimes the infrastructure, sometimes when it gets into the community, it has to go through some growing pains. I appreciate the Minister having some flexibility as to say, well, we can help you out here and there. I’ve seen that already, where some of the communities want to take over an operation but just don’t have it yet in our means or our understanding or financially and because of the new technology, and sometimes that causes a hiccup for the community. But I’ve also seen the Minister’s staff be quite flexible in helping them out. I mean, it’s not a cut and dried sort of a case here, take it or leave it. I’ve seen that flexibility with the Minister and the staff when I met with some of my constituents with the department, so I appreciate that. That’s what I wanted to come across, that there is some openness and some flexibility and some understanding that some of the infrastructure that’s going into the community in theory is good, in practicality sometimes it doesn’t quite match the theory of what we’re trying to do. But it’s also a good exercise as communities, again, looking at their top 10 list and saying, well, we can only do three this year and so forth. I mean, that’s understandable. However, I think this department is the one that gives most empowerment to the communities in terms of developing their communities. Just more of a comment there.

We see our role now as support to the communities. We work with them closely in identifying best practices, and if there’s a need to try and identify some financing that they have to go and borrow to see their projects come on stream, then we work with them. We point out some of the challenges they might face. Then, at the end of the day, after we provide them all the advice, the ultimate decision is theirs.

Again, I give a lot of credit to the communities. Through the NWT Association of Communities and Local Government Administrators of the Northwest Territories they’ve done a pretty good job in trying

to help the communities adjust to a lot of the new responsibilities they have. There are so many more people from the communities taking courses now through the School of Community Government. All the support systems are there and I like to say, at the end of the day, the final decision is the community’s, and that’s the way I believe it should be.

Any further general comments?

Detail. Okay. If I can refer your attention, please, to page 4-4, Municipal and Community Affairs, activity summary, regional operations, infrastructure investment summary, infrastructure investments, $28.002 million.

Page 4-8, Municipal and Community Affairs, activity summary, community operations, infrastructure investment summary, infrastructure investments.

Back to page 4-2, Municipal and Community Affairs, department summary, infrastructure investment summary, infrastructure investments, $28.002 million.