Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Moving on with questions on this page I have Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one question. Further down the line I’ll probably have more. Before I lose my thought on it, I wanted to ask in terms of the Land Use Framework. I know the Minister had stated that it could be, in some respects, used as a guide for policy guidelines in terms of how the government operates, especially in terms of trying to work cooperatively with the regions that are developing land use plans. I just wanted to understand how it is that this could be helpful in terms of trying to at least…(inaudible)…regions to ensure that there is common ground in trying to be consistent with initiatives on both sides, especially from government and First Nations. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I referenced initially in my comments responding to the opening comments, this Land Use Sustainability Framework is the government’s thinking, and it’s a framework that captures how we want to deal with the broad issue of land use and the sustainability principles that have been a cornerstone and bedrock of this government’s approach to resource development and just in general our relationship to the land, the water and the animals. Within that framework there are other subsidiary frameworks that are being worked on, strategies. Minister Ramsay referenced one today: the Economic Development Strategy. There’s the Mineral Strategy, the Water Strategy, the Energy Strategy. They’re all linked in here to make sure we’re consistent with those fundamental principles and elements of what we see as critical when it comes to land use and that issue of sustainability.

So when we now talk to the Aboriginal governments about their land use plans, for example, the complaint out of the Dehcho has always been the territorial government’s thinking isn’t clear, we just sort of mill around, we follow the federal government, we never make a decision, all these types of things. It wounded us sorely to be characterized that way. We applied ourselves to

getting our thinking clear on this, and this is what that work will give us and it will allow us to, I believe, conclude the Dehcho Land Use Plan and will allow us to be more effective at the table as we deal with all the other regions when it comes to land use planning. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Nadli. Moving on with questions I have Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My thinking is in line with many of the comments that have been brought up. Certainly on the fracking side of things I guess I would like to note that we did learn a lot on the trip that ITI sponsored for committee. Unfortunately, despite being shepherded about by industry, none of this committee, to my knowledge, has ever visited a frack site. So we still have a tremendous amount to learn.

I would say what we do know is that there is some very, very nasty stuff that routinely is both put into the ground and much more very, very nasty stuff is brought up from the ground. The issues happen, of course, when those enter our water or the air we breathe, the food we eat and these sorts of things. Many jurisdictions are just now, after some period of time, employing the fracturing technique – in fact, the very individual who invented fracturing has experienced this – are now recognizing major health costs to their families, to their water, to their livestock, to their municipal water supply and so on. These impacts are sometimes from the water, they’re also from volatile organic compounds that are emitted in gaseous forms, and they’re also from the very highly toxic elements that come out in the process of flaring. These are all, obviously, very rich areas for the department to play a regulatory role, and we want to know that that is happening. In fact, I think we’ve learned so much, but there’s still so much more to learn, both by committee and by Cabinet, I’m sure, and I know you’re on the road there.

I guess I’ll leave that as a comment, noting that certainly many jurisdictions have now decided to disallow fracking, and in fact that number is increasing across the globe in some jurisdictions, right down to community-sized jurisdictions. Obviously, it’s a very serious thing out there. The issue of seismic events, what most of us call earthquakes, being caused by fracking, there’s a report just out for northeastern BC where it’s been demonstrated to cause many, many of their seismic events. Of course, that’s fracturing of rock.

The practice now, a standard price, is to put water down into the ground and trust it’s going to stay there. This is very, very toxic water after it’s been used, and trust it’s going to stay secluded down there. But then when all these earthquakes start happening, that fractures rock and allows that water to migrate away and so on, and cause problems if it

gets into the groundwater and the source of our drinking water.

Another issue on the water that I would appreciate the Minister looking into – and I know he’s into water – is the fact that we are totally, in huge quantities – we’re talking trillions of gallons now – taking water from the surface, from the aqua sphere, if you will, the biosphere, the water cycle, and permanently removing it from that cycle and storing it away so it will never participate in that cycle again within the lifespan of our species. This is pretty serious stuff.

It is particularly serious here for a couple of reasons. First of all, we are sort of at the leading edge of climate change. Climate change is being expressed most severely towards the poles. One of the expressions is, despite higher precipitation relative to our current, we have more evaporation. So we are drying out. That is partly a natural phenomenon as a result of the receding glaciers still, but it is unfortunately being accelerated severely. This is becoming an issue in many parts of the world: desertification related to climate change. We are very vulnerable to that.

This is the second point: our water is fossil water. We don’t have renewable water. The tropics have renewable water because they get deluges there. Even the east and west coasts, they have all kinds of renewable water there. We don’t have that. Ours is fossil water. We use it; it’s gone. It’s not getting replaced. In a region, the scale of activities and removal of water is important. That is proving to be one of the major issues that are just starting to come to the front now. I’m looking forward to seeing the department’s work in that area.

Certainly the Arctic Energy Alliance is an area that I am interested in that we rely on to provide many of our services, particularly in the way of energy expenditures and so on, the energy subsidies and incentives is the word I’m looking for. I am disappointed to see that we are decreasing our Business Support Program when businesses across the Territories… This year, I believe the GNWT is spending close to $1 million in new electricity bills because of the 7 percent increase. This is happening across the Northwest Territories. Our businesses, our residents are experiencing this. We just pull it out of our pocket. No problem, okay, we will put $1 million into that. This is happening every year for the next three or four years of this. Our businesses have to put up with this. How are they going to make it out there? No wonder they are hollering about cost of living.

Here we had a modest $200,000 fund. I don’t believe that we had full uptake on this fund. This was, I think if they had put in $40,000, they got a $10,000 benefit. We have this issue in many places. People are so strapped with the cost of living in our communities, and businesses, that they

don’t have those upfront dollars. Rather than removing the support to businesses, a key part of our Economic Development Strategy, let’s come up with a model to use that money in a way that fits with the challenges our businesses are being faced with.

I guess I do have a few more points, but maybe I can get any response the Minister would care to offer at this moment in time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to the fracking and the comments from the Member, the Member is correct. This is a procedure that there are risks. There is no doubt. The work we are undertaking is to see how we can achieve that balance, if we intend to proceed, between the fracking and the protection of the environment. How do we do that? We know that there are chemicals. We are going to come out with the guidelines. We are going to be working with committee. We are going to have to collectively come to grips with this. By the fall, we hope to be able to do that.

In regard to our water being fossil water, absolutely. There is a chunk of the water in the Northwest Territories that is fossil water, but we also get 70 or 80 percent of the flow that comes from the Slave, which is the confluence of the Peace and the Athabasca with the headwaters of both in the Rocky Mountains. The headwaters in Athabasca are in Alberta. The headwaters of the Peace are in BC. In addition, we have the Liard, which has headwaters in the Yukon, and then we have the Hay River and the Chinchaga and all these other ones, minor subsidiary rivers. Up north we have the Peel that comes to us out of the Yukon. We have some areas where fossil water… The Member is correct, but the hydrological cycle is the winter, the freezing, the rain, the evaporation. But we have some very major rivers that are constantly flowing through our territory with water that is part of that hydrological cycle as the snow melts and the glaciers melt in the mountains.

In regard to the decreasing business support, I will ask the deputy minister to show where we moved that money to and it hasn’t been cut. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Campbell.

Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Mr. Bromley, your time is up. I am just going to let questions come around the first round and I will come back to you. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions are going to continue on with the Inuvik gas situation and $100,000 that will be provided to finding an advancement of this liquid natural gas, LNG. I just want to ask the Minister if he feels that the $100,000 that has been allocated to advancing it, if it will be sufficient enough to have an impact on the gas costs and the advance of the residential business and government side of demand on the fuel source.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Minister Miltenberger.

Mr. Chair, the intent of the $100,000 is to allow work to be done, options to be explored. It is not money that is there to actually look at… That money is not targeted at this point for any type of implementation. When we are in a position to stand up and announce formal arrangements, should we be able to do that with liquid natural gas, then we will be making different decisions. There is going to be maybe a different process separate from the money that is here. The Power Corporation, for example, is the lead on the liquid natural gas as it pertains to the generation of electricity.

If we can come to the agreements that we believe are possible, then we are of the opinion that we will be able to put liquid natural gas into Inuvik for the provision of electricity and then, at the same time, have those continued discussions with the community for the rest of the system. That will be a separate process. This $100,000 was just there, because when this dollar figure was put in we were still doing the work and had to come to a lot of determination as to what the next steps will be. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, just a quick follow-up question to this one here. To go ahead with the work and the options, should we come up with a viable option or solution within a short time frame, something that would be effective for the residents, the businesses and government side of things, would the department be coming back to the House with possibly some supplementary appropriations? Would that be an option to see that we do have this LNG supplied to Inuvik, should the results be positive? Would he be willing to come back with a supplementary appropriation to deal with this situation in Inuvik? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, let me speak specifically to the Power Corporation and the issue of the electricity. Should we be able to finalize the arrangements for liquid natural gas, that will be an all-in cost per gigajoule that we are of the opinion if things hold constant with what we know so far, it will be significantly cheaper than what is currently available in Inuvik right now. That will be funded through that price per gigajoule that we would sell the product for and we’d capture any capital expenditures that would be required to ready the…mainly dealing with storage. The Power Corporation in Inuvik is gas-ready with the generators that are there. So that would be taken care of that way.

The details surrounding the arrangement with the town for the heat side would have to be further concluded. I’m not in a position to speak to that piece with any certainty yet. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. It appears we’ve exhausted the first round of questioning. We’ll go back to Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to cover a couple more areas here. First of all in the area of electronics implementation, electronics recycling implementation planned for this year, it sounds like we have an agreement with Alberta. How is this going to work and what parts of the territory would that cover? Would we start with sort of the large regional centres? Where are we at with this? Was there a fee to recycle, a plan for recycling electronics, or is this an economic proposition that we’ll actually make dollars from this? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have built a recycling system now that enables us to go to every community in the North. The hope is we can build on that capacity that is there. We want to prevent, as I pointed out in Fort Smith, we have a mountain of computers at the waste site at our dump, they haven’t stuck into the waste site. I’m sure that situation is repeated across the North. So the intent is to work out the details of how we can bring that electronic waste to the regional centres that are now doing the recycling and work out ways from there with trucks to send them back.

We have to work out the costs with Alberta, we haven’t finalized those arrangements yet, and the idea of the surcharge on electronics to help, like we have on tires at $5 a tire cost, I believe is what we have now, that’s another thing being considered. Once we’ve finalized the costs, the revenues and expenditures that are going to be involved in this process, as we sort it out with Alberta and look at the cost to move this out of our territory.

The other figure where we’re working on to capture is one that Mr. Bromley has often brought up, and that’s the full cost accounting where we have to be able to put a dollar figure on it, and if we don’t do anything and we just load all this stuff into the waste sites, how fast will that shorten the life of our waste sites and what cost is there to that. So at the end of the day, I believe we’ll be able to show a full cost accounting that this is an initiative that should go forward. I don’t have a lot of the specific detail the Member would like at this point, but in the coming weeks we’ll be able to provide that to committee. Thank you.

It will be really great to see this get off the ground. We’ve been looking at it for some time. I’m happy that real progress is being made here.

My last one on the recycling aspect is, I still have people coming to me and really saying, you know, why will Cabinet not put down the price that they have to pay for milk containers in relation to what they get back. We do not want to raise the price of milk and this Minister has insisted on doing that. This obviously goes against our greater government goals of helping people and so on. Milk and the equivalent soy products are known to be really, really important to the health of our people and our children growing up. Will the Minister now move to adjust the milk container deposits so that people are getting back the same amount that they pay and there’s no net increase to the cost of milk for our people? Mahsi.

I’ll commit to give it a serious relook. It’s been a number of years and I know the Member has been a passionate advocate of that particular issue. So I’ll take another look, now that we’ve had some time to look at the costs and the money that’s available, and I’ll report back to committee. Thank you.

Much appreciated and I’m sure my passion is a reflection of what I’m hearing.

I’d like to move now to a question that’s come up before and the Minister is aware of this. In terms of the Solar Strategy, NTPC has a standby charge that completely destroys the economic feasibility of solar, unless you own the facility, solar installations that are 10 kilowatts or greater. I know the Minister is aware of this, but are we going to fix that this year? Is that considered to be part of the work plan for this budget? Mahsi.

The Member points to a broad issue of we’re the government and the only shareholder of the Power Corporation. On one hand, as a government, we set up a Solar Strategy, for example; and on the other hand, we have our utility that we own and seem to be working at cross-purposes with the successful implementation of that strategy. So, yes, we are going to fix that.

We’re going to look at net billing and net metering, and we’re going to look at the standby fees, and we’re going to make sure that these bodies that are working on behalf of the government and the people are coordinated and not at cross-purposes. Thank you.