Thank you, Madam Premier. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With all due respect to the Premier, I don't agree that we should continue to invest millions in advancing these projects without seeing any business cases for any of them. Even at 25 percent, these are substantial amounts of money that are coming out of the GNWT, and they are speculative spending. There is no guaranteed return on this investment at this point or in the life of this government or even in this decade.
The thing about doing all this preparatory work is that, in some cases, it will need to be redone. For example, early in my time in the NWT, I covered the Mackenzie Gas Project hearings. Even though the Mackenzie Gas Project had been proposed in the 1970s, everything that was produced in the 2000s, they started from scratch. The idea of putting out the money for projects that won't be advanced in a reasonable amount of time when we have other competing priorities is something that I am really struggling with.
My specific question to you is: when will we see business cases for all of these projects so that we can have a reasonable discussion about priorities? Thank you.
Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. If you can get the Minister of ITI to answer that question?
Minister for ITI.
I think that one thing that we do need to keep in mind, while maybe the 25 percent that we are putting forward is very dear, or definitely we have things we could be spending our money on, we do need to remember that that has leveraged us a 75 percent amount of funding from the federal government that can only be used towards these types of projects. While we are spending money that potentially we could use elsewhere, we are actually bringing in larger amounts of dollar into our territory which is a contribution to our economy that we wouldn't have otherwise.
Oftentimes in hard economic times, it is a known government thing to build infrastructure. It is a way to continue moving people forward and keeping them employed. While I recognize that that is a concern, that our funds are very limited, I would argue that the amount of money that the 25 percent is bringing in and leveraging is really, really good for our economy, and we need it to keep contractors and business as we move forward.
I can't tell you when the business plans will be completed. A lot of that is going to be part of and dependent on results. I would also say that the difference in technology and advancements in assessment-type work between 1970s and 2000s was quite a significant amount of technological increase in society. Therefore, yes, of course, that would have to then be redone. However, I don't think we would be doing the same amount of rework should these projects not advance.
I would also like to argue that I don't think that these are exclusive of each other, and all three could be advanced. It is just going to be a matter of staging our projects in a manner that we can move forward sustainably where we are not putting ourselves into a huge amount of debt to complete the projects. I agree with what the Premier says that it is going to somewhat come down to the whim of the federal government. We are at their whim. I also have no problems with going and pleading the case of, "You need to pay for more than 75 percent of this. We have a serious deficit in infrastructure."
I am going to do my damndest to ensure that we lobby as hard as we can with the federal government to pay for more of it, because this is not just a "this would be nice to have." This is a massive deficit to our basic infrastructure needs that none of the other provinces are dealing with. I feel like that is the case we really need to make strongly with the federal government, and I have no qualms with doing so. Sorry. It is probably not the answer that you wanted.
Thank you, Minister. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Madam Chair. No. The answer still doesn't address the speculative nature of spending 25 percent on a project that doesn't have a business case. If you went to a bank and you wanted to start a business and you said, "Could you give me 25 percent? I will get the business case to you when I get it done," I can tell you from having written business cases that that wouldn't happen. There would be no money without a business case. This, to me, is a really key piece of information that we need as soon as possible. It is just not feasible to keep dishing millions out the door on projects that may not be feasible. I want to reiterate that.
My last question in this segment is about the 25 percent spending. What kind of guarantee do we have as Northerners that the 25 percent is going to be spent in the North? Environmental assessment firms are mostly not staffed by Northerners and not based in the North. How can we have an assurance that the 25 percent that is being spent will be spent by people who live and work here over the long term? Thank you.
Thank you, Member for Yellowknife Centre. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want to go back to the 25 percent. Twenty-five-cent dollar is absolutely right. I am not happy paying 25-cent dollars, either. We are just in the middle of finalizing a federal engagement strategy. Like the Minister stated, we will be going down there and asking for 100 percent dollars. Twenty-five-cent or 75-cent dollars are no longer good enough for where we are in our economy and our financial statement. We all will be pushing that.
The other thing is that you can't expect the Minister to be held accountable for projects that have already been contracted out from the last Assembly. What I can say for this Assembly is that we have made it a priority for contracts for northern contractors and jobs for northern residents. However, there will be occasions when there is specialty work that we can't get in the Northwest Territories. If that's the case, then, we will have to go out of the territory for specialty work, but we will be trying as hard as we can to actually employ our people, our residents of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Premier. I am going to move on to the Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I concur with everything that my colleague from Yellowknife Centre has said, because I was in the last Assembly, and I disagreed with this priority when we were talking about it. I made no bones whatsoever about that, and I continue to think that it's very misleading to the public to say that we are going to continue to work on these three. We cannot afford them all at the same time.
The Premier and Minister said that we don't have any cost figures for these. After the Minister of Finance said in a supplementary appropriation, when I was asking what the cost of Slave Geological Province road is, that she didn't know, I went on the ITI website. Lo and behold, March 2019, there's an economic study done of the Slave Geological Province road. The cost, as provided by ITI, $1 billion. One billion dollars. When you look at some of the other interesting information in the study, most of the jobs are going to go to the South. Even during the engineering planning phase, 66 percent of the jobs, that's the assumption, are going to go south. Even if you get this through and there's mines that produced, 50 percent of the jobs are going to go south. That's what happens now with the diamond mines. Nothing is going to change. These jobs are not going to stay here in the North. We don't have the labour force to build this or operate it, and even do the mining, and fully benefit from this. I don't understand why we're leading people on and saying that we are going to get this work done. We don't have the fiscal capacity.
My question for the Premier is, I want to make sure that the kind of analysis that this government is going to do is going to include alternative economic development scenarios. For the cost of the Slave Geological Province road, we could get all of our housing out of core need. That's $500 million. That's what the study from the last Assembly said. $500 million to get all of our housing out of core need, plus we could get 20 years of universal childcare. It's a no-brainer for me which one I'm going to pick. I want to get our housing out of core need, and I want 20 years of universal childcare for a billion dollars. That's my priority.
Is our government going to do the macroeconomic analysis and compare different kinds of scenarios for the number of jobs that are going to be created, whether the jobs stay here, what the economic spinoffs are going to be? That's the kind of information I want. I don't want just business cases for these three projects, because I think they're quite unaffordable, and the benefits are not going to stay here. My question again to the Premier is: are we going to see economic analysis of other kinds of investments that we can and should be making as a government? Thanks.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The business cases that are being done for these three projects will give us a financial analysis of what we are looking at moving forward. Like I said, Madam Chair, this is one of 19 priorities. If I had my say on those 19 priorities, I was pretty adamant that I didn't want to see more than six. If the Members around the table would like to go back to that exercise, I would be more than willing to relook at that. If the Members around this table wanted me to pick six that I think we should be doing, I'd be more than willing to do that. As it stands, 19 Members picked 19 priorities, and directed Cabinet to figure out how to address these 19 priorities, and we're doing the best we can with the limited resources that we have. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Premier. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. Whether there's 19 or 22 is irrelevant, and I've made it clear that I didn't support some of them right from the very beginning, and you know that from the discussions we had internally about these. I disagreed about this one in particular. I just don't think we can afford it.
The Premier didn't answer my question. I want to know whether there's going to be an economic analysis done on other ways of investing the equivalent amount of money it would cost to build these projects to invest in housing or universal childcare. What kind of benefits would accrue to the North if we made those kinds of investments rather than these big infrastructure projects where most of the jobs are not even going to stay here? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. At this point, I am not willing to take on any extra work doing a financial analysis of cost benefits for other economic areas. We do have some information. I do believe that there was a report done by the Housing Corporation that has an amount, I believe, to be able to get everyone out of core need. I think that's a document that we have already. I can ask that that be produced or be presented again to committee.
At this point, like I said, Madam Chair, we don't have a lot of money. We've admitted that. The Members all know that. Our fiscal capacity is, we're at the wall. We have departments that have been underfunded for many, many years. If we were to take this back, I would say, let's just fund what we're doing currently now, properly, in fact. We are taking huge leaps, and for us to commit to anymore, I am very hesitant, Madam Chair. We have 22 priorities that we need to get addressed. We have a whole booklet of mandate items, plus we have our normal day-to-day business that we're already done. At some point, we are going to break the capacity of the GNWT, so I am mindful of what we got on our table, and I would like to finish up what we have first before we take any more servings on our table. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Premier. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. This is not the first time I have raised this issue. I've continually raised this issue, whether it was during the development of the priorities, and in the previous Assembly as well, that if you want to have evidence-based decision-making -- that's what this Premier always says that she's about, and she's shaking her head "yes" -- you need to know whether you're getting value for money. Even with the Minister of Finance today, a big part of her speech was about value for money. I want to make sure that, if we're going to make investments in these big infrastructure projects, that they'll actually create more jobs for Northerners, more spin-offs, and investment in social sector. Things like universal childcare, housing.
The Premier doesn't want to have that kind of financial analysis done. That's very disappointing. Can the Minister agree that we should be making evidence-based decision-making, and look at whether these other opportunities for investment will actually create more jobs for Northerners? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I do believe in best practices, and I also believe in capacity and what we're able to do. Right now, at this point, I think that our capacity is at the height of what we can handle. We do have a report already on core housing need that we can produce. Universal childcare, I'm going to push back a little bit, Madam Chair, and say that that is something that is more relevant towards the capital and some of our larger regional centres. It, certainly, is not an issue that communities, for example, our smallest community is Colville Lake, Lutselk'e, might put on their priority list.
Again, it doesn't make sense for us to do a financial analysis on 22 different priorities to decide when some of them aren't even relevant to all of the communities and all of the residents of the Northwest Territories. If we're going to go backwards in there, I'm willing to go backwards. I'm willing to sit with committee. I'm willing to look at these priorities again and take some of them off. If we take some of them off, I would have no problem doing a financial analysis. Doing a financial analysis for every single one of them, Madam Chair, that could take four years. I don't think we have four years to do that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Premier. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I appreciate what the Premier said. I'm not suggesting that universal childcare feasibility study be redone. I'm not suggesting that the housing core needs study be redone. What I'm suggesting is that you use the existing people in the Department of Finance that are supposed to be doing macroeconomic analyses to do comparisons and sensitivity analyses amongst different kinds of scenarios of investing money so that we are going to get value for money. That's all I'm suggesting. Thanks, Madam Chair. If we don't get it, you know that I'm going to come back and ask again and again and again for that. That's why I'm here. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I have no doubt the Member will be back asking again and again and again. I respect him for doing that. We also have a childcare analysis, as well. I can provide that, as well. If I remember right, the cost figure annually would be $25 to $40 million per year for universal childcare, and that does not address every single community. The smaller communities, again, they might have one or two people working. They might not even need childcare. Universal childcare is very elite terminology when we have communities that don't even see it as their priority; something else might be. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Premier. Member for Hay River South.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I was glad to hear the Premier say that she is going to be looking for 100 percent of the funding for some of these potential larger projects, and the question I have for the Premier is: with a business case for each of those, how far along, or are we even started, and how long would it take this government to come up with those business cases? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Hay River South. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. If I can get the Minister for ITI to answer that. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Minister for ITI.
I apologize. Could the Member repeat his question?
Member for Hay River South.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to the business cases for the three major projects, where are we with them and how long will it take to complete each of them? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister for ITI.
As I said before, I can't tell you when the business cases will be completed. I do believe, in the mandate, there isn't a timeline established at this point, but that is going to be dependent on what we get. I did just want to point out some of the value. A 2018 historic value of production report is estimated, from the mines within or around the Slave Geological Province, at $45 billion, so I would argue that that would be, I guess, the mineral resource potential of that region. I think that there is a clear case for why these should go forward, but I will commit to going back to the department and asking for a better, tighter timeline around the business plans and providing that back to the committee.
Thank you, Minister for ITI. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The one item that is in here, though, is the business case for the Taltson project will be completed by spring 2020. The other ones aren't in here yet, but that one will be completed as per our schedule. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Premier. Member for Hay River South.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I know those dates were in there. They were thrown in there or put in there. I'm just wondering how those dates were derived. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We asked the departments to provide the mandate actions, and then the deliverable dates and the measurable outcomes. In fairness, the departments were a bit conservative in their dates because nobody wants to be set up to fail. Then we brought this mandate document in to standing committee as a draft, and standing committee said, "Be bold," so we went back to the departments and we told them to be bolder, because, again, I don't want to set up the departments to fail, either. They looked with a little bit more objective lens, and they put timelines that they felt would be reasonable, that they could be expected to have them delivered in. It's not the wish list that says, "I will solve world peace in a month," and it's not the reality that says, "I will solve world peace in 5,000 years." It's a balance that says, "This is what, realistically, we think we can do." That's where the timelines came from. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Premier. Member for Hay River South.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one more question, and that is: right now, we need to make sure that the money we are spending is spent in the North. The contracts that we're giving out have to go to Northerners. Is the government willing to commit to looking at negotiated contracts in the interim to make this happen? Thank you.
Thank you, Member for Hay River South. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, there is a negotiated policy within the GNWT. However, we also need to make sure that we are abiding by the policy. For example, the negotiated contracts to help Indigenous governments to get their feet on the ground, I think it's five years that will support them in that. At some point, though, it has to be open to competition. It's not good to always have negotiated contracts, and then there is no market for any other business; you will shut down every other business. There is a fine balance to starting up, and we usually use them for Indigenous governments. Yes, we will use the negotiated contracts to help governments build their capacity, but we also need to take care of the private market, as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Premier. Member for Hay River South.
Thanks for that answer. I guess the problem I have is that, the way the economy is right now, what's happening is we're getting an influx of southern business coming in and taking work away, so we've got to do something different in the interim. If we have companies in the North that are willing to partner up with Indigenous groups to do, whether it's highway work or whether it's building, or whatever, I think we should seriously look at that, because then that way we know that the work will be staying in the North.
I guess I'm looking for a commitment from the government to seriously look at that. Otherwise, we're going to end up losing it to the Southerners, and we're going to lose our contractors anyway. I'm hoping that the Premier and the Minister of ITI can commit to seriously looking at negotiated contracts if it's between the government and a joint venture between whether it's an Indigenous group and a contractor who may not be Indigenous, or could be, as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Member for Hay River South. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Absolutely, we do want to work with Indigenous governments whenever possible. It's a win-win. I say that every time I meet with the Indigenous governments. If we can get them more sustainable, they will actually give jobs to their people; that means savings on public housing, savings on income support. That's the way I'm looking at our relationship with Indigenous governments; not as a handout, not as a favour. We will work better when we work together.
Like I said, we are committed. I have no problem with doing negotiated contracts with Indigenous governments. As for partners, I mean, there is no way that the Taltson is going to be built without those partnerships. We have Indigenous governments that are knocking on my door. I don't have to knock on their doors; they've been knocking since I took over. Thank you, Madam Chair.
