Question has been called. Motion is carried.

---Carried

---Applause

Committee, we are on page 13-17, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to talk a little bit about the Inuvik and Norman Wells situations. I know we’ve supported work to look at biomass solutions. I’ve heard the past mayor interviewed on the radio during the recent emergency in Norman Wells extolling the opportunities of biomass in Norman Wells and the Minister has told me that the long-term feasibility of biomass in Inuvik is good. Right now, I don’t see anything in here that follows up on all of those opportunities. What are we doing to move to those?

We could obviously pursue the liquid natural gas routes and other natural gas routes and so on, but we know that the general price will eventually go up once the Asian prices start to be realized in North America and so on, and the cost of fracking, reaction to fracking. It seems like common sense, again, to go for the best long-term solution from the start.

What is the Minister doing to push the frontier with those two communities that are facing real challenges right now and need long-term solutions?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Arctic Energy Alliance is hard at work on concluding their report on biomass. I’ve had side discussions with Mr. Mapes about the opportunity, effectiveness, efficiency and economics of pellets being shipped to Inuvik. We expect that that biomass report will be concluded. In the meantime, I think because it makes such good economic sense, many people are migrating on their own accord to biomass for heat. We will look at that as well.

The liquid natural gas one, I see that as an arrangement that is going to get us through the next three to five years as we sort things out. We also have the review in Inuvik of the wind that we are still working on. It has the potential to generate three to four megawatts of power. It could probably go both to Tuk and Inuvik.

In Norman Wells, we are continuing to work with the community. Their thinking is changing and clarifying as they look at what the options are. If you take what was proposed, a $39 million project for the size of that community on a per capita basis, you could give every man, woman and child in Norman Wells a very large payout. I’m not sure whether they see that as cost effective because the money is not going to be there from either us or the federal government in its entirety. We are continuing to work with them. At the same time, there is money in the budget for us to convert some of our own buildings, the airport and the school, just because it makes good sense and it eases the pressure on the gas situation. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, thank you for those comments. I appreciate the Minister’s comments there. I am glad to see he is still focused in on those things. Those sound like important opportunities to me.

I just want to acknowledge that the department is playing a very important role extending geographically the opportunity to use wood pellets for our residents and businesses by being such a good customer of wood pellets. I know there is a very new supply of wood pellets in Norman Wells. The action we are taking to take advantage of that supply and also to start considering the opportunity for generation of local supply through wood chipping, something that is done in just about every community in Scandinavia, I think those are very progressive things to be moving forward with. I appreciate the Minister’s ongoing commitments there and to wind in Inuvik and so on.

This may be the last question on this. Has there been a greenhouse gas emissions analysis done for the natural gas solution that is being proposed and for other alternatives? Obviously, my understanding is that we will be trucking up that

liquid natural gas. It will be continual 24/7 trucks on the road, and then there is the cost of extraction and refining and so on. Has that analysis been done? If so, can we get that provided to committee? Mahsi.

Mr. Chair, that work is being done. The Member is correct; it’s not just the liquid natural gas, but it is going to be the cost and the impact of shipping it up by diesel-fuelled trucks. When that work is concluded, we will share it with committee. Thank you.

That’s all the questions I had.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Committee, we are on page 13-17, Environment and Natural Resources, activity summary, environment, operations expenditure summary, $6.968 million. Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. Page 13-18, Environment and Natural Resources, activity item, environment, grants and contributions, contributions, $3.199 million. Mr. Bromley.

Mr. Chair, I am just wondering, under the Alternative Energy Program I see it looks like we spent about $1 million last year and it’s down to $7.75 million this year as proposed, but that is up from a couple of years ago. Is there a ready explanation for the source of convolutions that are going on with that budget? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. For that we will go to Ms. Magrum.

Thank you, Ms. Magrum. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Has there been a community or location chosen yet for the smart grid part of that, do we know?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would have to confirm this, but my assumption is, as we looked where we are doing diesel batteries and solar and putting in the other smart grid technology, it would seem to make sense to be able to monitor that and take advantage of all that. So that’s one place I would suggest be considered, but I don’t think we’ve made our final determination on where the smart grid technology will be applied other than that. Thank you.

Thank you for that information. Just in closing, I’ve had concern with a lot of our energy dollars, like some other departments are actually left until the last minute in the fiscal year to be spent. Can we get a commitment from the Minister that we will get some of these things identified early on in the fiscal year so that we can actually be effective with the dollars and make better progress throughout the year, as opposed to saving the dollars until the end of the fiscal year and perhaps lapsing some of those dollars? I know there is a lot of work to be done, but I think if we get at it earlier on, we can be more effective with our funding. Thank you.

It would be my intention, our intention, to have these various sites in communities decided on before the end of this fiscal year so we are ready to roll as quickly as we can.

I share Mr. Bromley’s concern about dragging dollars into the end of the fiscal year when you can’t realistically spend them. We want to be able to get this money into use and into the communities as quickly as we can, so we are going to target to the end of this fiscal year, which gives us just a little over six weeks. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Moving on with questions I have Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to ask the Minister on the biomass energy initiatives for the Sahtu specifically, the Minister mentioned Norman Wells school and the airport. I want to ask the Minister if he had some discussions regarding the new health and long-term care facility that’s going to be built in Norman Wells. Also, what opportunities for the people in the surrounding communities of the Sahtu to look at biomass supplies/opportunities with the Aboriginal groups, businesspeople, what discussions have happened with the people of the Sahtu regarding this new wholesale supplies of biomass with these wood pellets burners that are going to go into these government buildings?