Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the federal government announced some monetary funding over two years for the Canadian Culture, CCSF, as part of its 2016 budget. Further, the amount of money was allocated over 10 years in the 2017 budget.
Once we get the planning study and that done and the class C estimate, we will be in a better position to know exactly what we are looking for from the federal government. There are opportunities for us to put applications in to try leverage more federal funding to help with this project. We will certainly pursue that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that from the Minister. Do we know when the study is going to be finished, and is it something that can be shared with Regular MLAs? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The anticipation is that we will attempt to have the study done during this fiscal year, and we would be pleased to give committee regular updates as we move along in this process. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. I look forward to getting a copy of the final study.
Can the Minister tell us: is there anything for the museum mid-life update or upgrade in renovations in the 20-year capital plan? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe there's a small that's allocated in the capital estimates. I'm not exactly quite sure what the number is, but, as we get into the debate on the capital estimates, I'm sure we will have a better idea of the money that may have been allocated to any work that needs to be done. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, this is a comment more than anything else. Look, I support this work. I want it done, and I want it done quickly. We want to avoid at all costs what happened to the National Museum in Brazil, and I'm not saying we are going there, but there's a lot of heritage value and culture tied up in the facility here, in Yellowknife. It does support regional facilities, as well. We want to make sure that our museum is up to code and fully protected and provides the kinds of services and programs that our citizens deserve. I support this, and I urge the Minister, along with his colleague, the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, to get on and get this work done. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. I will take it as a comment. Next, I have Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to my colleague from Frame Lake for his line of questioning.
Mine is along the lines of that project, as well, the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, the Prince of Wales Heritage Centre, itself. I just want to dig deeper a little bit into the -- I'm going to assume that while we are calling it a planning study, it seems to me like this is a little bit more of what the government typically undertakes as being a technical evaluation of an asset. Although we are appropriating $400,000 additional, the total appropriation is for just over a million dollars. It seems concerning to me that class C for a million dollars on a mid-life technical evaluation is a considerable amount of money. Even $400,000, quite frankly, is a considerable amount of money.
What are we missing that we are not going to get in this evaluation? How can we not, with this kind of money, bring the evaluation to a tighter, I'll call it, "estimate," maybe hopefully get like a Class B level estimate that we can consider? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, that may well be. I mean, we do a class C estimate, and if there are opportunities there to upgrade that estimate to get a more accurate indication of the type of funds we need, if it falls within the money that we have appropriated, I think we should go in that direction. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the Minister for the reply.
One of the things that I would advocate for strongly, and we are going to see potentially some discussion about this in future budget deliberations, I would like to see the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre be considered as a building that we might connect with others, including the Legislative Assembly, say, City Hall, DND, and the RCMP, with regard to developing a district energy system.
Could that be something that this technical evaluation on planning study undertakes, or in fact, would we be expecting to undertake that kind of a review when we are talking about the mechanical and heating system? Can we consider that connection with a potential district heating system? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not sure of the exact detail. I would have to have a conversation, or we would have to have a conversation with Infrastructure to see what their scope might include. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I would encourage, maybe, then, is to have the Minister reach out to the appropriate Cabinet colleagues and maybe also the Capital Site Area Planning Committee, because I believe that this is an undertaking that they are giving consideration to, taking a number of these buildings in the area and try to connect them under a district energy system.
As it relates to our Energy Strategy and our Climate Change Strategic Framework, I think this would check off a lot of boxes for us. While we are using these kinds of resources to do this kind of a technical evaluation, it would only seem that, through an economy of scale and for other reasons, it would be the right time to see if we could connect the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre to a district energy system, one in which the Capital Site Area Plan is already kind of working toward. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
I am not sure that there was a question there; it was more of a comment. As I said before, we will have a conversation with the appropriate parties to see what their exact scope of work is, and if there are opportunities to expand on that, we will have those conversations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Seeing no further comments, I will call this item. Education, Culture and Employment, capital investment expenditures, culture, heritage and languages, not previously authorized, $400,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Education, Culture and Employment, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $400,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Please turn to page 7, Industry, Tourism and Investment. Comments or questions?
Seeing none, I will call this item. Industry, Tourism and Investment, capital investment expenditures, economic diversification and business support, not previously authorized, negative $642,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Industry, Tourism and Investment, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, negative $642,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Please turn to the last page. Infrastructure. Comments, questions? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Our government, I guess, is partnering and getting some money from the federal government to proceed with parts of the Mackenzie Valley Highway. Can the Minister explain what the status is of the Mackenzie Valley Highway Environmental Assessment that is before the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I didn't quite hear what the Member had to say. I apologize. Part of the next capital budget, maybe we will put an allocation in for new earpieces, but I believe Mr. Kalgutkar heard that, so I will ask Mr. Kalgutkar to respond. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Kalgutkar.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is my understanding that the department is still in the very early days of planning the work required on the environmental process for the Mackenzie Valley Highway, and I think, once this appropriation gets approved, the work will start ramping up relatively shortly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. The environmental assessment has been going on since 2013. The last letter from our government on the public registry is dated May 18, 2016. That is two and a half years ago.
I want this work to go ahead probably as much as anybody else in this House, but unless we sort out how this work fits in with what the review board is doing and the legislation prevents work from going ahead, that is an environmental assessment.
What is the department doing to get this sorted out with the review board so that the work can go ahead? The last correspondence from our government on the review board website is May 18, 2016. What are they doing to sort this out? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister McLeod has indicated that he would like Minister Schumann to answer. Minister Schumann.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I stated in the House when we were talking about this earlier in the week, Department of Infrastructure staff has been meeting with the regulatory boards, including the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, to discuss next steps. Those discussions are ongoing.
We are trying to figure out a way to proceed in terms of the environmental assessment, considering that we don't get funding for the whole road. I have stated in the House that the bridge is a totally separate and permitted issue, so that is outside of the scope of the Mackenzie Valley Highway.
Those discussions are ongoing. We want to be able to take those discussions and go to the Indigenous governments to figure out next steps going forward within the other organizations as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Given that the Minister of Finance and Minister of Infrastructure are looking for an appropriation for 2018-2019, when is the specific work for, say, the Mount Gaudet access road supposed to start? Is the intention to start it in 2018-2019? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister McLeod would like this to go to Minister Schumann again. Minister Schumann.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our intention is that we have to see what the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board has to say first, concerning next steps for us. As I said, the bridge is our priority going forward in the next coming year. We believe that is the number one priority, and we will continue to work with the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, Indigenous governments, and other stakeholders to figure out how we are going to do Mount Gaudet going forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess I want to encourage the Minister to sort this out as soon as possible. This isn't the first time I have raised it with him; this is probably the third or fourth time, and there is nothing that has appeared on the review board website about this in the public registry. Maybe there is something happening behind the scenes, but if the department intends to get this work done, they need to sort this out ASAP with the review board. You cannot start work that is within the scope of the environmental assessment. That's the law. They need to sort this out. I would just encourage the Minister to do that as quickly as possible. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Next, I have Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support this appropriation, knowing that they are putting a budget there with the three categories of work, exercise, so I'm satisfied with the numbers, and basically just stating my support. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely, for that comment. Next, I have Mr. Thompson.
