Thank you, Minister. Mr. Vanthuyne.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it could go into any other government program or initiative of any kind, just for clarification?

Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, revenues and expenditures are treated separately. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Vanthuyne.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Will there still be a plan to continue to apply when and where appropriate to feds, for federal support funding, like we currently do for federal support programs? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. Neudorf.

Thank you, Mr. Neudorf. Mr. Vanthuyne.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Therein lies some of the problem, and the concern that I have is that this could be well-meaning, but first of all, we should be identifying an infrastructure gap, which I am going to assume that maybe the Yellowknife Airport already has, to some degree. I see the list of projects that we want to achieve over the five-year plan, but this is probably part of what the people are looking for: show me what needs to be done, and build a plan around how we are going to achieve that.

If you are going to use this fee to apply to it, then fine. Then, when it is done, it is done, and the fee gets dropped. In the meantime, what we are going to do is put the weight of these infrastructure priorities on to Northerners and visitors, and we are going to divert federal funding into the communities, to help them with their high-priority needs. We could still be applying for federal funding. Use that and a user fee to fast-track getting the Yellowknife infrastructure down much faster, so that we can just get it off the books, and then start prioritizing other federal funds into the other 26 airports. I don’t know if that is a comment, Mr. Chair, that the Minister cares to reply to.

Thank you. Minister Schumann.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know it was a comment, but I have to respond to it. As being the Minister of Transportation, I am now going to be the Minister in charge of infrastructure. Our infrastructure deficit in this territory is more than we could ever tackle. I’ve said many times, even at the federal FTP tables, the money that they had allocated for transportation nationally across this country, if they all gave it all just to the Northwest Territories, would never, ever even meet the needs of the Government of the Northwest Territories and the citizens of our territory. These are ongoing challenges. They are always going to be there no matter how we address this; even if we took the Member’s approach to what he is saying. It would just continue escalating. This is what we see as a way to move forward to address the capital needs and to change the Yellowknife Airport and, at the same time, make it into an economic driver for citizens in the Northwest Territories. That does free up other federal pots of money that we can put into all the other communities across the Northwest Territories for transportation and, particularly, airports. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Vanthuyne, was there anything further?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To that point, the problem is that when you look at the list that’s being proposed for the Yellowknife Airport, yes, there are aspects with regard to better improved service, but most importantly, improving safety. That’s a priority. That’s probably a priority for most of the other airports. It ought to be, but when you’re being asked to take $10 million out of the economy to put into a lot of these other projects that we’re identifying as being part of the infrastructure gap but really are actually just nice, shiny, nice-to-have projects at our airports, that’s where I have a problem with this.

The other thing is that I argue that the business plan is not a business plan, quite frankly. A business plan builds a case that does a cost-benefit analysis project by project. We have a list of things that we want.

Mr. Chair, the business plan suggests two things. The business plan suggests that the current rental rate of leases and vendor leases and vendor agreements of that sort may be considered for increases. Can the department explain? Is that also being considered right now, that the current existing lease holders there might be seeing a rent increase? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. Neudorf.

Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The business plan also indicates that the user fee and I believe the air nautical fee will be subject to annual increases under influence by the CIP. Is that what’s anticipated? Is that what can be expected that we’re actually going to see an annual increase in these fees based on the CIP adjustment? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. Neudorf.

Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.

Just for the record, currently, right now, the CIP is at 2.1 per cent. Just so folks know, that’s the kind of increase we might potentially be looking at on an annual basis. I don’t mind increasing a fee when it’s for the purposes of trying to keep up with the costs of inflationary factors, but when this is just trying to take more money out of people’s pockets, that’s a troublesome thing to swallow.

Mr. Chair, my last 20 seconds, as I’ve said in my opening comments, this is not a time to apply a new tax of any kind especially when it’s as steep as such. For those reasons, I will not be supporting the bill for what the bill allows us to enable. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne. I see nothing further. Clause 2. Does committee agree?