The town of Norman Wells, through the public housing, I guess the Public Housing Program, there shouldn’t have any glitches in terms of the conversion and the way it’s working out.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The intent is to make this as seamless a transition as possible.

I would again ask if the whole town of Norman Wells, through this contribution to the Housing Corporation, will see all the units in the town of Norman Wells receive this type of support

as we’re giving to Inuvik because of the conversion of natural gas to synthetic natural gas.

As we move forward with the resolution to the energy challenges in Norman Wells, they will be getting, of course, the full support that we have to offer both on the Housing Corporation side and other government agencies as required. But that work is still underway and not quite clear in terms of the final fix that we’re looking at in Norman Wells. There has been a significant amount of move to biomass, for example, for heat. There was initially about a $39 million ask by the community for a major district heating, which I believe they’ve moved away from, so we’re working with them, plus we’re continuing to convert our own facilities, as we’ve indicated through this budget, to biomass. We will be having that ongoing discussion with Norman Wells as things become clearer in terms of next steps.

I look forward to the discussion and having discussion in the House here. My colleague Ms. Bisaro has indicated we’re pretty well in the hole here, so I hope we have some reserves left over for that type of discussion to support the town of Norman Wells on their conversion to what source of energy that we’re going to direct our funds to. I look forward to the discussion. I think the Minister has pretty well answered my questions.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. More of a comment. We’re going to go to Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also wanted to ask a couple of questions on this. I know we’re putting in some millions of dollars to basically buy down the electricity rate throughout the NWT until a couple years down the road when we’re done with the increases, but I see here that we’re also covering them as they got bought down. They actually get parcelled out to the various customers and, obviously, GNWT is the biggest customer here, including the Housing Corporation. This is all on top of the 11 point something million for the Territorial Power Subsidy, so I don’t think it’s got anything to do with that. When all is said and done, what if the cost of buying down is just going to be out of sight now but still being paid by GNWT, because we, as their biggest customer, roll it out of a subsidy into simply paying our bills?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The government doesn’t get any subsidies. We pay the fully burdened rates. I’m not sure if that answers the Member’s question.

I guess maybe we can take this up another time because it does get complicated, but let me ask, what is our access for Canada’s

disaster relief here. I see that referred to in the material in helping recover costs, these costs.

That is in reference to the flood at Nahanni Butte.

Okay. So is this $1.212 million strictly with respect to the Inuvik situation?

There is $461,000 to pay for increased utility costs for public housing in Inuvik, mainly resulting from the conversion from natural to synthetic natural gas; $669,000 to provide for housing repairs in response to the Nahanni Butte flood, which will partially be recovered from Canada; and then $82,000 to fund increased electricity costs resulting from the approval of the interim rates set by the PUB.

Thank you for that explanation there. Returning to my original question, the first point and the last point show that due to increasing costs, which are accruing as electricity bills, these new costs are accruing because we are no longer subsidizing. As each year goes by we spend less money subsidizing, and what happens is it disappears from the obvious expenditure and becomes part of our utility costs. My question is: What proportion of the millions that we’re now spending to subsidize beyond the annual Territorial Power Subsidy Program to help with electricity costs are we absorbing into government utilities that we just pay as the normal course of events?

We, as a government, have put in subsidies to cushion the rate shock. As well, on an operational basis, governments don’t get any type of subsidies, so we pay out the cost to cushion, or the subsidy, and then we pay the fully burdened rate for the service.

I think I’ve got it. This is just simply the higher cost of electricity. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Committee, we’re on page 4 of the Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2012-2013. Finance, operations expenditures, deputy minister’s office, not previously authorized, $1.212 million. Total department, not previously authorized, $1.212 million. Does committee agree?

Thank you. Page 5, Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2012-2013. Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, public safety, not previously authorized, $349,000. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do we know yet what proportion of that will be recovered? I’m assuming that the total in Nahanni Butte now is the $1.964 million, if I’m reading that right, which usually I’m not. If I can get confirmation on what the

total is, recognizing that we’re dealing here with the $349,000, and maybe get some sense about if we any idea on what we will be recovering…

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. If I can just get you to finish that last part of your sentence, please.

Sorry. I dragged off there. To see what will be recovered through the Disaster Relief Fund. I know it won’t cover all, but I think we were hoping it will cover a lot of it. If I can just get that completed.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. For that, we’ll go to Minister Miltenberger.