Okay.
---SHORT RECESS
I call the committee back to order. Thank you. We will wait for your witnesses to come, and then we will have the Sergeant-at-Arms escort them in. Is he here? Okay. Sergeant-at-Arms, can you escort the witness in, please. Minister, will you please introduce your witness for the record.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the indulgence. We are all working diligently this morning on a number of things. I have here with me Mr. Sandy Kalgutkar. He is the deputy minister of Finance.
Thank you. I will now open the floor for general comments. Seeing no questions, we will move to detail. We will begin on page 6, 2020-2021 Supplementary Estimates No. 1, (Infrastructure Expenditures), infrastructure, capital investment expenditures, asset management, not previously authorized, $10 million. Questions? Member for Frame Lake.
Madam Chair, I move that $10 million not previously authorized be deleted from infrastructure capital investment expenditures, asset management in the Supplementary Estimates, Infrastructure Expenditures, No. 1, 2020-2021. Mahsi, Madam Chair.
There is a motion being distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I think it's important that the public realize this is a very important debate that we are about to have. It's a debate about the future of the Northwest Territories. It's a debate about infrastructure projects and people.
What this motion is about is deleting from the supplement appropriations $10 million that has not been previously authorized for work on the Slave Geological Province road. I fully understand that this is 75 percent federal funding. I understand that this is part of a larger project and that the estimated costs are $1 billion or more to actually build the project. I raised numerous concerns about this in the last Assembly, around a whole variety of issues and matters, and I have talked about those with my colleagues when we were developing our priorities. I talked about it during the mandate, and I am talking again about it here today. We have to make hard decisions, and that is why people elect us to this House, is to make those kinds of decisions.
My position has always been clear, that I will put people over large infrastructure projects, investment in people over large infrastructure projects. I have always asked for detailed analyses of economic costs, benefits, and value for money around these infrastructure projects, and I have never gotten it. I understand that some of this expenditure may be for that work, but I think we need to have the debate and discussion now around whether this is the right path to start to go down and whether we want to continue to spend money developing this particular project. What we are being asked to do is authorize $2.5 million of our own money for next year, but that is just the beginning, where this is $10 million over four years.
In my view, the more time and effort that we continue to spend on this particular project, it takes away from work we can and should be doing on other projects, namely housing. That, to me, has always been one of my highest priorities. It's what I hear from my constituents. That is why I am here. By continuing to spend money on this project, it is taking away from our ability and efforts to do other projects, whether it's housing, whether it's healthcare, whether it's education. Unfortunately, we have never had, sort of, the analysis about, if we had $1 billion to spend, where would we get the biggest bang for our buck? What I do know is that the economic multipliers used by the Northwest Territories Bureau of Statistics will show you that investment in health and education creates way more jobs than investment in mining and non-renewable resource development. That's not me saying it; that's the Bureau of Statistics.
One of the reasons that I have expressed a lot of concern about this project is the state of the Bathurst caribou herd, and make no mistake about it, this road, as planned, will go through the range of the Bathurst caribou herd. The planning to date has been to maximize access to mineral deposits. I asked very clearly on the floor of the House how the routing was being designed, and so on. I was told that it was being done to maximize access to mineral resources. There has been no consideration whatsoever given to caribou and their habitat. We still don't have a fully funded plan to help the Bathurst caribou herd recover. I will say that we do have a range plan that has finally been approved; it has not been fully funded. I have kept asking on the floor of this House, "Where is the work on habitat protection?" That has not been done, and we need a much more balanced approach on that. Quite frankly, I would take the $2.5 million from this and spend it on other things, including habitat protection.
I think the other issue that this project raises is one of priorities, in terms of even our own infrastructure. In the last government, they had an opportunity to submit a number of projects to the National Trade Corridors program, including the Frank Channel Bridge. The previous Cabinet decided that the Slave Geological Province road was a higher priority than the Frank Channel Bridge. That, to me, Madam Chair, was the wrong set of priorities. I will always put public safety over a large infrastructure project. This money can and should have gone to do work on the Frank Channel Bridge.
I want to say one more thing about this, Madam Chair, and it comes from the economic analysis report that was done in March of last year by the Department of Infrastructure. It was not given to the MLAs of the day. We were not told about it, but it is available on the Department of Infrastructure website. The assumptions used were that, even during the engineering and professional services stage of this project, 66 percent of the labour work to be done is going to be imported. Even the $2.5 million that we're going to put in here, two thirds of that is not going to stay in the Northwest Territories; it's going to go elsewhere. At no stage in the Slave Geological Province road, from design, construction, right to actual mining, will any more than 50 percent of those jobs actually stay in the Northwest Territories. If we spend a billion dollars on housing, I would tell you that a lot more of those jobs would stay in the Northwest Territories; or on health, education, you name it. Those are the kinds of priorities that I came here with.
Lastly, I want to say, Madam Chair, that I just simply believe that we cannot afford to build this project, even if it was the right thing to do. We cannot afford it as a government. We're very close to the debt wall. This would require extraordinary borrowing or increasing our borrowing limit. I just don't think that we can afford this, nor can we afford to do three infrastructure projects, the big three, at the same time. I think we are fooling ourselves, we're fooling the people of the Northwest Territories, if we continue to try to tell them that we're going to do these three large infrastructure projects all at the same time.
Madam Chair, this is a very, very important debate that we are about to have, and it's the first time that we have had this debate in public about what our priorities are going to be, moving forward, as a government and about this particular project. I encourage all of my colleagues to think carefully about what they're going to say and where they want to stand on this issue. Madam Chair, I request a recorded vote. Mahsi.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. To the motion. Member for Hay River South.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have thought about this expenditure of these funds, and initially, I had said that, when it came to this road, I had no interest in it whatsoever, but at the same time, I reflected on that, and I don't look at this as an infrastructure project versus people. What we have to look at, we have to look at it as a balanced approach to growing the NWT. The NWT, right now, we need an economy. Right now, besides the government, our main economy really is mining, and we know that it's going to end at some point. The diamond mines might end there, but something else might take its place.
I still believe that we have to support our education system, our health system, our public housing requirements, but we also have to support the business sector. When you look at the money that comes into the Northwest Territories, over a billion of that goes into health, goes into education, and goes into housing. If you take a look at, really, what goes into the business or the economic side, it's very little. I want to make sure, when we go forward, that it is balanced. I know that we have different opinions here with some of us, but that's okay. That's what I like about it, that we hear everything.
In saying that, one thing that my colleague had mentioned is that the jobs are going to come from the South to do this work. The money is going to go south, and it's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen. We have to make sure that anybody doing work for the GNWT has to have a stake in the Northwest Territories. They have to have an office here. We have to hold their feet to the fire to make sure that they hire people here. They have to have some ownership in land, buildings, and infrastructure themselves in the Northwest Territories. If we don't do that, then I would have to agree with my colleague that we don't need it. As long as the government can, you know, assure me that that's going to happen, then I have no problem allowing the expenditure to go through.
I guess, the motion that is before us right now, I won't be supporting it for the very reason that the economy is very important to me, and there are businesses in the Northwest Territories that are struggling and there are people who are struggling. We have to make sure that we have a diversified economy, and that means looking at all aspects of it. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Hay River South. To the motion. Minister of Finance.
Madam Chair, thank you. It is perhaps fitting that we are going to discuss what I agree is an important debate on a day when we are otherwise very focused on marshalling resources here in the Northwest Territories for the health and safety of our people. It brings, for me, as Minister of Finance, into focus the fact that we are so dependent on the federal government for so many things. It brings into focus the fact that we have to remain, at times, more visionary and better leaders; more visionary of our future and better leaders for our people.
One of the priorities that we collectively set, all 19 of us, Madam Chair, as you well know, was to have strategic investments in our infrastructure. Specifically, this project, Madam Chair. This is one of the first opportunities that we're having to actually advance those priorities in a meaningful way. We didn't come to that decision about priorities easily. We didn't come to it necessarily unanimously, but, Madam Chair, that's not necessarily how consensus government works. Consensus government is an opportunity to debate and to discuss.
Madam Chair, we are before you here. I am before you here on what I've said already is agreed to as being a priority for this Assembly, that it was something we would move forward on. The current appropriation that is being proposed builds on an appropriation that existed already from 2019. It's an opportunity to begin the employment assessment. It's an opportunity to begin the planning. What that then means, Madam Chair, is that this is an opportunity to be comprehensive. It's an opportunity to be consultative. It's an opportunity to showcase the fact that the Northwest Territories can do resource development differently and better. We can be leaders in resource development. We can be leaders in Indigenous relationships. We can be leaders in ways that can show the rest of Canada how modern resource development can work. This is just one part of it. This is just the opening stages, the environmental assessment and the planning stage.
Madam Chair, it's an opportunity to be world-class. It's also an opportunity, Madam Chair, to deliver widespread benefits across the Northwest Territories. It's an opportunity to truly have all of our people shine. It's the first phase, and it's a phase where, if we're going to have the concerns already raised around whether or not, Madam Chair, to involve and engage local employment, then that's up to us. It's up to us, Madam Chair, through our procurement and our contracting to ensure that, in fact, we engage the people of the Northwest Territories.
Madam Chair, it's an opportunity for us to actually bring forward a project that will have benefits for several regions. For example, Madam Chair, it was suggested that we could invest this money elsewhere, in the Frank Channel Bridge. Well, the Frank Channel Bridge is a key link. If this is going to be a transportation corridor that's going to link the Northwest Territories to Nunavut, to the Arctic, well, we need to maintain the existing linkages we have, and the Frank Channel Bridge is a critical part of that. By bringing this project forward, I'd suggest that, in fact, this is going to be another reason why the Frank Channel Bridge should be brought forward, as well, and it's going to be a strong reason to support that project.
We have, in the past, sought funding for the Frank Channel, but the federal government had granted this project the funding; but this is now a chance to come back around and say that that bigger picture, that vision, needs to be supported on all those fronts.
Madam Chair, it's also an opportunity to, perhaps, boost our clean energy industry. It's an opportunity to look at what's happening in Taltson and say whether or not this would not actually support that project, too, by encouraging development, by encouraging the opportunity for further corridors for energy delivery.
Obviously, too, Madam Chair, this is an opportunity where we can better develop the mineral resource sector in terms of the kinds of mining industry that will support green energy. Again, Madam Chair, we can be leaders in this, but it is up to us to have that vision, and it's up to us as to how you're going to develop it, and this is really, again, just the starting point.
We all know in this House that we're facing a decline in our current resource industry. Our current resource industry has already largely reached its peak, arguably has reached its peak, and we want to rebuild our mineral resource industry. We want to build investor confidence, and we want to rebuild that in a way that is current and modern and responsive to this Assembly, and this Assembly's vision. This is not prior Assemblies. This is not the past Assembly. This is not the way things have always been done. We all arrived here on a mission of change, and we all arrived her on a mission of doing things differently and better. That means keeping resource dollars in the North. That means keeping the spending on projects in the North. That means engaging local industries. That will be up to all of us, and it will be up to this Cabinet to do that, and to deliver on that promise.
Madam Chair, I don't see necessarily that it's a simple choice of saying, "Spend it on health or spend it on something else." That's not, unfortunately, the ease with which government budgeting works. We just don't get to pick and choose one thing over another. We need an economy in the North. If we don't have an economy in the North, Madam Chair, we aren't going to have people. We won't need all the other things if we don't have the people here to support that economy. We need all of these things together. That's where it becomes a case of saying, Madam Chair, that I do believe that we have to advance this project, and advance housing. We can advance this project with this vote, and still vote on all the other things that we have in our priorities by being careful, by being balanced, by looking at that total picture.
Would I ask necessarily for this House to vote on the same project over and over? No, Madam Chair; that's not what we've done. We've presented a $2 billion budget. This is one small piece of an infrastructure supplementary appropriation to do one project, but there's so much more that the GNWT is delivering on. This project, however, Madam Chair, is the opportunity to grow the economy, to increase investor confidence, and to truly move ourselves forward in a way that makes us different and leaders.
Madam Chair, the consequences of not doing that are significant. If we were to choose to turn this away, and to turn this money away, we'd be turning our backs on a project that's been approved to the tune of $30 million from the federal government. I have over and over now already heard it said, the importance of reaching out to our federal partners. The importance of engaging with the federal government to ensure investment in infrastructure in the North, social infrastructure and physical infrastructure. Madam Chair, I'm not sure where exactly I would go or how I would restart if we were to suddenly turn around and say, "No, this major nation-building project that you've been looking at since the 1950s, we're turning our backs on it."
Madam Chair, I don't think we can afford to do that. I think, too, we have to think about the bigger scene of what we're building, what we're potentially building. It is a transportation corridor into an area that doesn't have communities. It's a transportation corridor into an area of high economic opportunity. There are tourism opportunities. This will support the ability to, again, as I've said, ultimately support a potentially green energy industry in terms of the minerals that are being sourced. It provides a corridor into Nunavut. It really is nation-building, and it's up to us whether we want to do that.
Madam Chair, as a result of that, I am asking people to continue to vote this project forward, and to, as such, not vote in favour of the motion to remove this money from the supplementary appropriation. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Member for Nunakput.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Going over the motion and going over the bill, we, as Members of the Assembly, have to look at the big picture. We have to make sure that we are creating jobs and employment for the people in regard to projects where, basically, free money is coming from the federal government. I think what the biggest thing is, how I look at it is, when Yellowknife does good, we do good, and this is jobs for Yellowknife. There's a potential opportunity to make change in regard to the socio-economic agreements between the mine sites that are going to have access to that. We're going to be able to hold them more accountable, and having to have your office here, people working out of here, people working from the Delta where we're from, giving them opportunities. Potentially, this could bring five mines in. I know it's going through traditional grounds for caribou, but we had this same thing with our Tuktoyaktuk to Inuvik Highway, and, you know what, it seems to be working. In the big picture, we are open for business.
If we do not do this project and give that $2.5 million, I want that $2.5 million for some of the stuff that I want to do, but something like this, this is needed. It's free money. We have got to work for it, work together. I agree a lot with my colleague, but today we have to support this bill to go through. It has other things on it, right, for Inuvik, for the airport and stuff like that, so I am fully supporting this. I won't be supporting the motion. I will be supporting the go-forward for the bigger picture across the territory. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Nunakput. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. To the motion.
Yes. Marsi cho, Madam Chair. I just want to share my thoughts on this motion. I am looking at a map of the Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh riding, and this goes right through the heart of it. This project goes right through the heart of my riding, and I am about a balanced approach, as well. However, I am tired of a lot of the resources that come out, that are being extracted, a lot of the projects that come in here and seeing my constituents go without, still go without, and it's still continuing, and I am tired of it. I am sick and tired of it, and so are the chiefs, as well, of the Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh riding and the Akaitcho territory. I have consulted with our chiefs. They agree with me on this. I was conflicted in the fact that, yes, we need an economy, but there is still not enough consultation. The other stuff in the Delta, I am okay with, but I am not okay with the supp portion, so I will be supporting this part of the motion. That is where I stand on that. That is all I have to say. Marsi cho, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. To the motion. Member for Thebacha.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I know this is part of our mandate that we set out together, all of us. I am very much about the economy. We have to set the stage to ensure that we are still open for business. I am very strong about the economy, always was, ever since I have been here. Even before, in my previous leadership, everything was around business and the economy, even in what I have done in my previous leadership, setting up the First Nation to ensure that when I leave they are set up for life.
I think it's extremely important that a strong economy is best for all the people of the Northwest Territories. We must have faith. We must have hope. We have to look to the future. A lot of our youth do not come back here because we don't have a strong economy, when they go out for education. That has happened many times, even in the South Slave area. I believe that the economy is extremely important, a balanced economy and an economy that will ensure that all the social programs are looked after. You can't have it only one way.
I appreciate the comments and the motion that came forward from my learned colleague, and I respect his views, and I hope he respects mine. I will be voting against this motion because I am in favour. We are only asking for, the government is only asking for, $2.5 million or so, and it's a preliminary thing with the environmental and the studies that have to take place. That was part of our mandate when we all sat down together, all 19 of us, and so I will be voting against this motion, and I am in favour of a strong economy. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Thebacha. To the motion. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I find this a very frustrating workday, today. To be quite honest with everybody, I wish that we had been able to sit and go through every detail of the entire future of this project before we came and thought about putting dollars into it. In actual fact, I wish that this had been dealt with 20 years ago, when diamond mines were at their height. Maybe the diamond mines would have actually paid for a lot more of our infrastructure if we had made that part of the deal. However, we can't go back. We can only go forward.
In regard to what the Minister of Finance said in terms of strategic investment on the three major infrastructure projects, yes, that was in our mandate, but I don't think we ever had a conversation about what direction we were actually going to take. We knew that those were the three major infrastructure projects that the territory had and that we were interested, but we also knew that we do not have the money for all of them. The Slave Geological Province road is a $1-billion project, and we do not have $1 billion to finish it. It's just not part of our reality. The diamond mines will very likely be closed before this road is fully open and operational, and I know that there are other opportunities for more roads. Do we even have the money to contribute 25 percent of the total cost? That is also an unknown and very frustrating, because how much money are we going to put into a project that we are not sure we will actually be able to financially see through to the very end?
The other part of it is: will Nunavut actually contribute their half of the road, which goes up to the Arctic Ocean, which is a huge component of this project? I feel like there are a lot of questions about whether or not we can make this work and whether or not it will make it to the Arctic Ocean. That being said, I would hate to wait and then 20 years from now wish that we had actually looked into this and wish that we had actually done a research study to see if this was feasible rather than having the people of the Northwest Territories continue to question where we should put our money, along with everybody sitting around this table here today, because the economy is important. When we went door to door, and I know a lot of the people in Yellowknife heard a lot of the same things, one of the primary concerns of people of the Northwest Territories or at least, sorry, in Yellowknife, was our economy and was the future of jobs in the Northwest Territories. We are sitting here with an opportunity to leverage some serious federal dollars and essentially provide jobs for a $2.5-million investment on our part and a $7.5-million investment on the federal government's part, but, that being said, in order for us to actually maintain benefit or get any benefit from that money, we have to actually have northern employment and northern contractors working on this.
If we look at the Members' statements we have heard recently from the Member for Monfwi in regard to, say, the road to Whati, 40 percent of that was northern contractors, and 40 percent is not enough in my mind. That is not good enough for the money that we are keeping in the Northwest Territories. If we are going to be looking at spending money and saying that this does create jobs in the Northwest Territories, then we have to be diligent in making sure that we are actually getting something for our own money and that we are actually leveraging the federal dollars and putting them into our own economy because, otherwise, there is absolutely no sense in doing this because, yes, while we say we are open for business, we definitely are not open to be taken advantage of anymore. We need to start maintaining some benefit from the resources of the Northwest Territories, and we need to start working with Indigenous governments and making sure that people are benefitting. Right now, our people are hurting, and that is not the case. I am going to just go through my notes here and make sure I am not rambling too much.
Like the Minister of Finance also said, it is up to us to make this work. We have not done a great job of that in the past with the road to Whati and with Stanton Foundation. I have multiple people in my riding who have not been paid who were sub-contractors from larger contractors through the Stanton Territorial Hospital Project.
We are not doing any kind of service to the people of the Northwest Territories when we are inviting southern companies to come up and then not even pay the Northerners with the money we are hoping to keep in the North. I think that it is our responsibility, to provide the people of the Northwest Territories with as much information as possible. While this supplementary of $2.5 million is looking into an environmental assessment, that is what it is doing. It is providing people of the Northwest Territories with information so that we can be able to say, "Yes, we are going to do this going forward," or, "No, we are not going to do this going forward," and be able to have an evidence-based decision as to what infrastructure project we are actually strategically going to put our money behind. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Kam Lake. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the first things that I learned in this House when I was elected in 2015 is that consensus government means being heard. It doesn't mean that everybody agrees with a single point. I appreciate the opportunity to be heard today on this issue. I want to say about the mandate commitments that I, personally, did not agree with every priority that we put into the mandate, but what I have learned is that you give a little and take a little. I would not have put three infrastructure projects into that mandate, but there was a lot of interest from other Members in having them all there. That is what we ended up with.
What I said in my reply to the budget address just a couple of weeks ago is that I had a lot of questions about whether we could do all three projects simultaneously, about the ability of the NWT business and employment sectors to maximize the benefits of the projects at this stage, and whether, in fact, the 75 percent offered by Ottawa, while looking like a good deal, is actually the tail wagging the dog. By offering 75 percent, it obliges the NWT to spend 25 percent, and we don't really have 25 percent. This supplemental appropriation will drain our supplementary reserve fund and, in fact, put it into deficit by over $1 million. It's not like we have a lot of money to put into this project or other projects at this time.
What we did do in our mandate, in our priority-setting exercise, which I do fully agree with is, as other Members have mentioned, to look at how to maximize northern benefits from projects and how to maximize northern procurement. That is the whole range of things from contracting northern businesses and employing people who live here full time to or mining and royalty regime. This work hasn't been started. We just agreed to do it in February. We need to do this work before we start spending money on infrastructure, on these big infrastructure projects. I understand it's preparatory work. I also understand that, in the whole scheme of our budget, it is a small amount of money, but we have to start somewhere in putting our feet down and saying, "We are not going to have any more projects in which the majority of the benefits are flowing out of the NWT to contractors who are based outside of the NWT, to workers who fly in and fly out and leave us wondering why we have missed the boat again." We saw that happen with each of the big infrastructure projects we have had to date. At some point, it needs to stop. I am going to suggest that this is the place at which it needs to stop.
I don't want to say that this road should never be built or that it won't ultimately bring some benefits to the Northwest Territories, but I am saying we need to do some preparatory work around retaining benefits in all their different dimensions. We need to do some revenue generating work to put ourselves in a better position to spend the 75-cent dollars that come to us from Ottawa. I will be supporting this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Member for Yellowknife Centre. To the motion. Madam Premier.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to bring out a few points. I hear people and I hear their concerns in stating that we need to support people. I agree we need to support people, Madam Chair. I am a social worker by degree. I also ran four years ago because I wanted to address homelessness. Housing was a big priority for me when I came in. However, I also am a diamond driller's daughter, Madam Chair, and I recognize that a large portion of our gross domestic product in the Northwest Territories is dependent on the mining sector. I know because of my history and because of learning in this House, as well, that, if we find a valuable gold, silver, rare earths, cobalt, whatever it may be, even if we are talking about the green energy, today, it will take 10 to 15 years from that original find until we have a full-blown mine in operation. We know that our mines are closing down fairly soon. We know we haven't found anything right now. Is it fair of us, we talk about taking care of our future, if we don't promote something in our resource development market, trying to find something today? We are looking at a minimum of 10 to 15 years. That is our legacy we will be leaving to the governments to come.
I also know because I am the Minister of Indigenous Affairs that the money doesn't only stay in the Government of the Northwest Territories. We cost shared those royalties with the Indigenous governments over the last few years. They were making millions off this over the last few years. Because of the decline in our mining sector, their resource-sharing moneys are going down drastically. Every dollar that we put in to helping the Indigenous governments has been used to help. It helps us, too. The more that they get money for Indigenous governments, the more they build their own economy, the less it costs us in issues like public housing, income support, all of those issues.
I really want all Members to really think about this. We talk about our future. Not everybody wants to be a carpenter. Not everybody wants to be a plumber. If we put all our resources in building houses, and I am about building houses, but if we put all our resources there, we talk out a whole sector of people that their employment skills, they might not be wanting to go in that sector. I also know because I am a social worker, you need money to have social programs. I do not want us to end up being a welfare state, Madam Chair. I think that we have to look for resources now. If we don't find resources now, we are in trouble, and we are not helping our children and our future to come. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Premier. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank my colleague from Frame Lake for bringing this motion forward, because it's an interesting process we go through where we all set our priorities and then Cabinet sets the mandate. A lot of that done is done in confidence for good reason, because that's consensus government, but there has to be a public debate on this. Ultimately, I am not in support of the motion because I don't believe we are actually having the debate right now on the Slave Geological Province Corridor. This is $2.5 million to begin environmental assessment, Madam Chair. Environmental assessment work is fundamental to telling us some more facts about this project, to answering some of the large questions about what its effect will be on the Bathurst caribou. In our mandate, we say this work is going to carry on until 2024, Madam Chair. I think we have to put these things in perspective, that we have been talking about all of these major infrastructure projects for years, decades in some cases. Largely, they are a dream of the mining industry. It's a dream to expand Taltson, which would find cheaper power, and then put a road through the Slave Geological, then to connect it to Grays Bay Port project, a multibillion-dollar investment that I think we could never afford. There are some valid questions to be asked, you know: if we are going to slowly put money into this, a million dollars here and there, and then it's just going to come to a point where we cannot afford to construct it, would that not have been money better spent?
However, Madam Chair, I think that the environmental assessment work is key to answering some of the questions I have. There are so many what-ifs about this project. Eventually, this Assembly or the next or one of these Assemblies will have a debate on whether to fund that construction, but I do not believe that is the debate we are having at this time. I struggle because we developed these priorities in Caucus and we all did not agree on all of them, but that is the nature of consensus government, so I struggle to now try to remove one of our priorities and to remove essentially a mandate item that was agreed with all 19 Members. Ultimately, there are some huge questions, and I think we have all raised them: the future of mining in the Northwest Territories; will it employ enough Northerners; will it provide benefits to our residents; what will the effect be on the Bathurst caribou herd; is this project viable without the Grays Bay Port project; is it viable without Taltson? I don't actually have answers to these, and I do not believe anyone does because there are a lot of moving variables.
The fact of the matter is that the most important decision in any of this is outside of our controls, and that is commodity prices, Madam Chair. What drives whether this business case makes sense is the price of the minerals we have in the ground. One of the interesting things about this is it also is in Akaitcho territory, which is another huge question mark for me in this process, is that: should we be building a highway through Akaitcho territory, knowing that eventually that will be their land? If this was the decision, to build the highway right now and the Akaitcho was unsettled and the Bathurst caribou was in the state it's in, I would not be in favour of this. However this is the decision whether to do an environmental assessment, which will help me with many of those questions, Madam Chair.
Ultimately, this is also 75 percent funded from the federal government. We have a contribution agreement in place. I keep telling Cabinet: go and get money from the federal government. At some point, I know we are driven by the allure of 25-cent dollars, and that is a bit of a problem to our sovereignty, but the reality is that, if the feds are willing to give us 25-cent dollars, I will take them. I keep directing Cabinet to do so, so I don't feel comfortable voting to remove what is 75-percent dollars. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Yellowknife North. To the motion. Member for Monfwi.
Masi, Madam Chair. [Translation] Today, we know this is a big issue. We know for a fact it has been an ongoing issue for a very long time, and now it's in front of us. All of us today, all of the Ministers and MLAs, have spoken, and some support it. Some do not support it. Right now, the federal government had money there. We see $2.5 million. That is a lot of money that we are looking at, seeing it today, and we see for a fact, in the communities, we know we need training in all communities and departments, and also we know that we have concerns about the caribou because we know, when the mining was to develop a few years ago, there were concerns from the elders about the caribou, all our elders. Right now, we know for a fact that we will be crossing Akaitcho land. Are we giving them support about doing this project? I do not see them standing behind us to begin this project. Right now I see, if we are going to go ahead, right now, at Frank Channel, that has to also be included, but right now that has been put aside and they put this project first. For me, that is not right, and I don't like it. I went to see the Minister this morning, and I talked about what can we do so that we can put forward, put all that forward, because, for myself, I would like to be able to face the people, and this is my work that I do.
So then I ask questions to our own people, my people, and I know for so long our elders had spoken about the caribou, of course, and to protect the caribou for so long, so long, so long, and now, but not with this. The department, with this and the project that is going to happen, it sounds really well, good, because it would be a development. When the Stanton hospital, the Dehcho and all that, you know, we sit, we see all that business, and yet it's all taken and coming out of our territory. Right now, you see the highway that is going into Whati, I want to see a lot of my people working, but I do not see that, and so I see the business, it's not from our territory, and that is what I see right now. What we say and what we do is two different things, Madam Chair. Right now, with this, a winter road, an all-season road, is this good? I have to say there is no guarantee in investment. We build this road. Is there going to be a project going? Is there going to be a development? Is there going to be some more mining development?
Right now, we know for sure that most of the mines are closing, and the only thing that we have is just only on the winter road. A lot of stuff is also happening right now. I know a lot of elders, a few of them are with me. It's like it's unbalanced because right now, when you say (inaudible) in English and on caribou and development, we should be able to see it as one, but at times we don't see that at all. Right now, it's not my language, Madam Chair. Caribou, I am talking about caribou. Right now, there is no caribou in our country today. For that reason, I hear that daily, every time I see an elder. That is for them.
So, with this project, what is going to happen? We have to worry about that, so I have to say so many projects are happening. We have issues like housing, education, today, now virus within Canada and the Northwest Territories, and where is that going? What is going to happen? We are going to spend millions and millions to let disease spread, we hear. Now we hear $1 billion. In Tlicho, we can't say "1 billion." [English translation not available], you just add million, million, million. Then it's you have to say a billion, but I have to say right now, whatever we have to review, there is so much to do yet. Madam Chair, I really, really am caught in the middle. At times, as for myself, I know I spoke on it yesterday, that bridge at Frank Channel. I would love to see that on the project that is going to happen before what we have in front of us right now. Right now, I see all the Members. Right now, I know that I would have supporters, yes. This, this project that we are talking, it's an issue. It should be second, but now, right now, it's been twisted. Well, what's going to happen if the Frank Channel would go right through right now? How are we going to be able to get anything, access to anywhere at all? We will be stranded here. As a leader, because I live and so I think about stuff like that every day, over the Frank Channel, I see over that. That bridge is over 50 years old, Madam Chair, so many issues to be dealt with.
Right now, this motion that we're in, Frame Lake, thank you very much. Minister, you spoke on, thank you very much. The Minister has a job. They look forward to do their work and their project. Is this the right thing? We're all here, 19, which we would be able to come across these issues, so this is just about as much as I would say right now. Ten million that we see on the paper, and $2.2 million from GNWT, but some are saying, it's like we're going to do research, and so, maybe much later on, we would see it as a project that would be able to go ahead.
When we begin an issue or even assessment doing research, or maybe we would leave it aside. When you begin, and then, it's like you keep going forward because, and then, you end up with $1 billion or so, maybe in about 10 or 15 years, or $1.5 billion that we would be able to maybe spend.
So, in Tlicho, we don't have a billion in Tlicho, but right now, we don't have that kind of a billion on a piece of paper as GNWT. Our government, and watering down some money to us, so, Madam Chair, we know there will be a motion passed. For now, I am thinking, how I might be able to vote. I said it before, this is not me. I am here for the elders. Most of the elders are not here with us today. They were my great friends, so this is how I am going to vote, thinking of my elders. This is all I'm going to say, Madam Chair. Masi. [End of translation]
Thank you, Member for Monfwi. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Marsi cho, Madam Chair. I move that, pursuant to 6(2), Committee of the Whole sit beyond the hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of the continued consideration of Tabled Document 43-19(2).
The motion is in order and is non-debatable. I will call the question. All in favour? All opposed? Abstentions? The motion is carried.
---Carried
We will continue on. Member for Frame Lake? To the motion. Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to reiterate some of the comments that were made by my Cabinet colleagues here, and I will be voting against this motion. Part of my responsibilities as the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment is the Income Assistance program. There has been a lot of discussion in this House recently about the Income Assistance program, and particularly about how we can better help those who are Income Assistance clients, how we can help them become self-sufficient. To that end, I've been looking at how we can reform those programs to help make people more self-sufficient, and I can tell you that it's not free. It's going to take money, but I think it's worth it. It's worth pursuing those changes because people on Income Assistance are often just barely getting by. When you're barely getting by, it makes it almost impossible to get ahead.
Right now, the GNWT is on Income Assistance. Our grants from the Government of Canada are Income Assistance payments. While we are making progress in many areas, we have a long way to go. This project is us taking the steps to become self-sufficient. We don't have a big tax base the way they do in the South. Our government can't generate tons of revenue, so we need these types of projects to help set ourselves up for the future so that we can become self-sufficient, so that we can start seriously addressing some of the social issues that we are all dealing with on a regular basis.
Everyone knows we need more houses. Everyone knows we need better education outcomes, but those all cost money. In many cases, some of those negative social indicators are symptoms, and we can't just keep addressing the symptoms. We have to take big steps to take control and become self-sufficient. I will be voting against this motion, along with my Cabinet colleagues. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of ECE. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. I will give it back to the Member for Frame Lake for any concluding remarks.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I do sincerely want to thank all my colleagues in this House for the debate that we've had. I think this is probably the most important debate that we've had since we've been elected. Unfortunately, it comes at not the greatest time, with a number of other things looming in the background for us, of course.
First off, I want to make it very clear that this motion is not about the other projects that are in the supplementary appropriation. I support the other work that's in here for Inuvik, and I've always been very clear about that. This is about this one part, and it's about removing the funding in the supplementary appropriation for the Slave Geological Province Road.
This is a debate about the future of the Northwest Territories, and the vision that we'll have. We don't all share the same vision, and that's the way it should be. That's part of consensus government, as well. If the only future that we have is pinning all of our hopes on this one project, I wouldn't do it this way. This is about more of the same. This is more about an extraction-based economy moving forward. As my colleague from Yellowknife Centre said, we're not ready for that. Even after devolution, we're not ready for it. We haven't put in place the kinds of systems to make sure that we truly benefit from this scale of resource development. Thirty billion dollars' worth of diamonds have left the Northwest Territories; $30 billion worth. We have a heritage fund that's $26 million. We've done a terrible job in terms of distribution of the benefits from diamond mining across generations, across the Northwest Territories. We have not done a good job. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues of this House to make sure that we change that, that we need to change that, and we need to do that now. It should have been started four years ago. It should have been started 20 years ago, but it didn't, and I'm worried that we're going to fall into the same traps again.
You can look at how Nunavut has approached the federal government, and the kind of relationships that they have developed. Nunavut got a lot more money for housing because, when they went to Ottawa, they talked about housing. That's not what the government did in the last Assembly. They went and talked about big infrastructure projects, and we got dribs and drabs of money, but Nunavut got more money than we did around housing, and that's what I hoped I could encourage our Cabinet to do, the same thing. When they go to Ottawa, housing has to be a top priority, and I think we started to see some evidence of that.
People say that I'm anti-development, and I know I'm going to get criticized for some of the things that I've said here today. I'm not. Our job is to make sure that, when there is resource development, we actually benefit from it. We have to make wise decisions around the priorities, even priorities amongst the three infrastructure projects that were identified when we set the priorities in the mandate. If it was up to me, I would finish the Mackenzie Valley Highway. That's the project that makes most sense. It connects communities, and, if it's done at a scale and pace so that communities can actually benefit from it, given their labour capacity, labour force, that is what I think we can and should be doing.
This project is speculative at best. I understand my colleague from Yellowknife North. This is about getting more information. It is, but I'm just not sure we want to start down that road, so to speak. An example of that is the Mackenzie Valley Highway, which has been in an environmental assessment for six years because it was not well defined. The government leap-frogged ahead and started to do the environmental assessment work before they'd finished the planning work, before they'd lined up the funding. It's been mired in environmental assessment for six years. That is what is going to happen with the Slave Geological Province Road if we don't have the funding lined up, and we don't. I'm just not sure why we want to start to spend money on that right now.
Some people have talked about how the $2.5 million is a small investment. It's actually not a small investment. That is a quarter of the entire amount that we have to invest in the mandate for this year. It is significant. That is a lot of money. Today, people are going to make the conscious choice of whether they want to spend it on an environmental assessment for a road or other priorities that we have. That is the decision we are being asked to make here today.
The other couple of things, lessons learned that I want to take away, and I am talking to my Cabinet colleagues in particular, is: you haven't done a good job selling these large infrastructure projects with this side of the House. I think that is shown in the division that we are going to get with the vote here today. You haven't done a good job explaining what those projects are all about, the cost, the benefits, and whether we can afford them or not. People on our side, we need to hold you accountable to that and get better information out of you.
I think that's all I wish to say, Madam Chair. I had requested a recorded vote. As I said, I think this is probably the most important debate that we have had in this House since we have been elected. I know it doesn't come at the best time, so I want to apologize to everybody for putting them through this. This is something we have to do. We have to stand up and be counted, and our residents need to know where we stand on these issues. Thanks, Madam Chair.
The Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife Centre, the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Thank you. All those opposed.
The Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Monfwi, the Member for Nahendeh, the Member for Yellowknife South, the Member for Sahtu, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Hay River North, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Nunakput.
Abstentions. None. The motion is carried -- defeated. Sorry.
---Laughter
It's a long day, sorry. It's Friday, the 13th. All right, we will be moving on now. Committee, we had three in favour, 12 opposed, no abstentions. The motion was defeated.
---Defeated
I will now go back to 2020-2021 Supplementary Estimates No. 1, Infrastructure Expenditures, infrastructure, capital investment expenditures, asset management, not previously authorized, $10 million. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
All right. Let's move on to 2020-2021 Supplementary Estimates No. 1, Infrastructure Expenditures, infrastructure, capital investment expenditures, programs and services, not previously authorized, $18,658,000. Questions? Seeing no further questions, does committee agree?
Agreed.
Okay. 2020-2021 Supplementary Estimates No. 1, Infrastructure Expenditures, infrastructure, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $28,658,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Does committee agree that you have concluded the consideration of Tabled Document 43-19(2), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2020-2021?
Agreed.
Thank you, Minister, and thank you to the witness. You may escort the witness out of the Chamber. Does committee agree that this concludes consideration of Tabled Document 43-19(2), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2020-2021?
Agreed.
