Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, none of -- these are broad funding agreements and some of them -- well, obviously, some that were -- are already have sunsetted with -- they were in the 2023-2024 line or 2024-2025. But for other areas, they are -- other grants and contributions, there's none that are necessarily specific to the Deline micro project. Now, that said, I know I have had outreach from Ek'Wahtide Gaudet in Roundup on this. We're certainly keen to examine and explore the possibility of micro hydro. I'm certainly very keen on it. So some of that is work that can be done within our department by the folks who are -- you know, by the proposed budget in front of you to continue to staff having a strategic energy division that will help allow for the staff who have the expertise to do exactly this kind of investigation. So while it doesn't have a specific line item, again, I'm quite confident that at least at this stage, we can work with the Deline Got'ine Government to move this along. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from the Sahtu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to the Minister for that reply. The Minister had mentioned that some of the funding sources have sunsetted. I'm more specifically looking down at the low carbon economy leadership fund, and you got three sources there for a total of $10.3 million. And the Minister had mentioned earlier, earlier in the day, about ongoing negotiations there for the Arctic Energy Alliance funding. Is that related to the numbers that we're seeing? Is that what is being lobbied by this government to reinstate those three line items for a total of $10.3 million? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have certainly raised this both with Minister Guilbeault and Minister Wilkinson. It is quite frustrating as I understand that the federal government reallocated the money that previously was under this fund to areas that were not beneficial to the Northwest Territories, certainly not in ingrowth equal amounts, for example with respect to diverting it to heat pump initiatives that while we will certainly continue to investigate the ability and the applicability of heat pumps to the Northwest Territories, there are regions for which the current technology is not compatible. So as I say, I have certainly voiced that on more than one occasion, my frustration. We're not alone in voicing that frustration. But to date, I have not received any positive response from the federal government that they would re-examine this funding specifically. I think they were looking at changing some of the accessibility or eligibility on some of the other funds so that we can apply. But this stream, the funding, in particular these three streams under the LCLELF, have not been reinstated by the federal government. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from the Sahtu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to the Minister for that update there. And I look forward to a favourable reply later on in the year and wish the Minister the best of the lobbying efforts to reinstate those funds. Mahsi.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from now from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to first ask a question about -- the Member for Yellowknife North touched upon it today in her Member's statement, and I wanted to follow up, you know, during budget here. Certainly, it was unfortunate to see the discontinuation of the low carbon economy leadership fund, and I just note that there's a few projects that have discontinued funding also under the energy action plan, and I was just wondering -- you know, I see the electric bicycles rebate, any electric vehicles rebate. And I'm just wondering is there a reason why the money that was saved from these programs wasn't redirected to different programs in the energy action plan, particularly the low-income program to address energy poverty? I know during budget last year, we talked about the importance of that program and how it would be nice to see that program expanded. Can the Minister speak to that and why the savings that we've achieved from removing older programs -- or other programs -- sorry, is not being used to move towards other programs in the energy action plan? Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I'm going to send that one to Ms. Burt, please.

Thank you. I'll go to the director.

Thank you. I'll go back to the Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, maybe the Minister or her staff could give us an update on kind of on progress that they've been making in advocating the federal government for kind of continuation of these funds or perhaps obtaining new funds. I notice that, you know, when we look at the revenue items on page 262, there's a number of different projects for which we got new funding this year or increased funding. I won't list them off, but I do see a number there. So I'm just wondering if we -- why we haven't made progress on getting funding for programs like this. Certainly, the low-income program in particular to address energy poverty, I would love to see us to get funding for or move funding around to make it possible to continue funding this program, because I do see it as critical. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the low-income program to address energy poverty, that does continue to have the same $200,000 amount that is -- was in place since 2023-2024. That has not changed. The other programs, to the extent that there were federal funds available, I mean, Mr. Chair, you know, I -- I can only say, as I said to the other Member, I was surprised given what seemed to be the current federal government's interest in this space that this received such a drastic reallocation of funding. I say reallocation because as I understand it, the money that went to the low carbon economy leadership fund was directed to other areas; one being in particular again, as I said, the heating pumps but there was a secondary one which, again, was around different fuel sources and, again, nothing that was necessarily applicable to the Northwest Territories or as directly applicable as this particular funding was. I don't know. It really does not strike me as intuitive as to why those changes were made. We have raised it. I suspect, given the state of affairs in shift or likely to be in shift shortly with our federal colleagues, that this is an area that we will have to re-examine once we know what the next government's iteration of priorities might be in Ottawa. But other than that, that I'm -- unfortunately, that's about as much as I can provide for right now. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, you know, I just want to emphasize to the Minister that, you know, some of these programs -- even some more than others, particularly the low-income program, but there is a number of programs put forward under the low carbon economy leadership fund that were about more than just reducing greenhouse gases which, of course, is an important goal. But also these are some of the key programs that have been used in the territory to help people reduce their cost of living, which is -- it's something that politicians constantly talk about, and it's one of the areas that we have the least ability to affect things, except for this area, helping people to reduce their heating costs, helping people reduce the cost of operating their homes. So I personally think programs like this, that are geared towards those goals, really are important and need territorial funding even if we don't have the funding coming from Canada though I strongly encourage the Minister to come -- to go to Ottawa and demand funding for things like that. But areas where we're able to -- you know, these programs have been in every case oversubscribed. A lot of people are interested in getting this kind of funding. A lot of people are interested in doing upgrades to their homes which will help them, you know, reduce their carbon output and help them save money. So I just really want to make the case for that and would encourage the Minister to fund programs accordingly and just to understand that, you know, we put a lot of money into big infrastructure projects in this department, and I'm not denying that those are important but, you know, a little bit of money to each individual homeowner goes a long way to helping them reduce the cost to their pocketbooks, and that's the thing that people feel when you make changes for them. People aren't going to notice their costs go down, you know, because we put a bunch of money towards this or that infrastructure project. So I do just want to make that case to the Minister. She can reply if she wants. But it's something that I think is an important area. I think it's important to residents. The fact that these programs have been oversubscribed year over year over year tells us this is something that is important to residents. So, yeah, any case I can make for continuing the programs, I will make it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, it's not a lack of understanding or, frankly, even disagreement. As I said, I was surprised -- surprise probably doesn't quite describe it. But certainly was surprised to learn that the federal government was cutting these programs that support communities that are most in need of being -- having alternatives to rely on fossil fuels that are least well able to find alternatives and because we are not connected to the grid, we are, you know, nonroad communities, so I'm more than happy to give all my reasons why I thought this was a not very intuitive choice. But I don't control the federal government or what they choose to fund or not fund.

I do want to assure the Member that under the Arctic Energy Alliance's series of some of the core programs, the alternative energy technologies program, biomass, commercial energy conservation, and efficiency as core funding to Arctic Energy Alliance, energy efficiency incentive program, energy rating services program, all of that funding is still there. It has -- the proposal that we have forward here is not to change that from 2024-2025. It's just that we are struggling in terms of finding the funding for other things that were previously funded under the low carbon economy leadership fund. And again, I certainly can ask but I -- right now, Ottawa is a difficult place to be going to do some advocating. There's obviously a bit of political change perhaps on the horizon, so we'll see what comes next and then adjust our strategy accordingly. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just pondering the answer a bit. Yeah, I hear what the Minister is saying. I know that it is difficult to obtain funding. And certainly, I did note that most of the core funding for Arctic Energy Alliance is still there, and I know it's tough when the federal government takes things away and that we can't always continue every single program the federal government gives us money for. But, again, would just note, you know, if we have to use territorial money for something particularly related to climate change, what I want to see that money going towards is programs like this that have that twin benefit of helping, you know, low income, particularly families, reduce their cost of living and reducing carbon, just noting that, you know, these are the things that impact people the most, and I think -- when I think about, you know, the implementation of the carbon tax over the years, it certainly was imposed on us, I think the most just way to deal with that and to handle that money would be to put it back in people's pockets and put it towards programs that help them reduce their costs and get off of these expensive heating sources. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Sorry, I missed that last part. I'm going to go back to the Member from Frame Lake.