Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will get Mr. Moore to explain further. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Moore?
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a long, complex process. Obviously, there're a lot of investigative studies that are part of the $40 million, and part of that is understanding of the attributes of environmental risk and consequences of proceeding on certain routes. That will feed into the decision-making process, whether we proceed with an EA or not and what stage. I think it's a bit premature at this point to proceed. It's not our decision, basically, to move forward with an EA or not. The board processes will determine, essentially, if we need to proceed with an EA or not. At this point, Madam Chair, it's premature to say. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Moore. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I'm going to stop this line of questioning on this item because I don't think my witnesses here really actually understand what's in the MVR, that our government actually does have the authority to trigger an environmental assessment, which is exactly what they did for the Mackenzie Valley Highway. I might suggest that they do some homework on this issue.
I want to go back to what the Minister said about this project: it would have been good maybe 30 years ago. What I'm worried about is: I would like to see a cost benefit study or a business case developed for the road from the end of the Ingraham Trail to Lockhart Lake if, indeed, that's what the project is. Maybe even the more important question to ask is: by putting this money into this road, it means that we're not doing other things. What are the opportunity costs associated with doing this road? If it costs $450 million, that's 20 years of universal childcare that we could have in the Northwest Territories. Four hundred and fifty million dollars would probably get most of our housing out of core need. Choices have to be made, and I've made my choice that I don't think this is a great investment, quite frankly, especially at a time where caribou are at a critical stage, the Bathurst caribou herd. In the kind of economic analysis that the department intends to undertake, is that kind of work going to be done to look at what the opportunity cost are of spending $450 million on a road that ends at Lockhart Lake? Is that kind of economic analysis going to be done? Thanks Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Absolutely, we can look into it. I do want to make note that we have funding for the road. There's lots of work for businesses who are accessing it. Also, just a note, some of the funding we received is specifically for roads and highways and project-specific. We can't be telling the federal government to go and say, "No. We don't want to spend your money on an area where it's slotted, rather than to use it in another area." We are getting $75 into communities we wouldn't be able to get in any of our communities anyway. Thank you, Madam.
Thank you, Minister. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. Yes. I really want to encourage the Minister, maybe working with her colleague the Minister of Finance to do that kind of macro-economic analysis of what we could actually get for $450 million, the cost to build this road. We don't have the $450 million to build it, and I think that's probably on the low side. Would we create more jobs? Would we create greater well-being for the Northwest Territories if we invested in that money into childcare or housing rather than building a road? That's a fundamental question here that I hope that my colleagues on the other side are actually listening to.
We only have $538 million left in the borrowing limit for this government. How are we going to be able to afford to do Mackenzie Valley Highway work, Slave Geological Province road, and Taltson all at the same time when we have that limited amount of borrowing limit left? We can't do it all. Hard decisions have to be made, and no one seems to want to make that decision, those hard decisions about what our real priorities are: whether we're going to put our people first in terms of childcare, housing, you name it; or are we going to build roads? I'm sorry. That's the stark choice that faces this government.
I've said before: if I had to build one infrastructure project, it's not even in the budget, is completing a network of broadband connecting all of our communities to high speed Internet. It's not even in this budget. It's not even a big infrastructure project nowhere. That's the project that we can and should be taking to Ottawa, not the Slave Geological Province road.
Those are comments, Madam Chair, but I really urge my colleagues on the other side of the House to do the hard, economic analysis that needs to be done to look at what we can get with the dollars that we have. Investing in a road like this is not going to generate the kind of long-term benefits that I've heard people here talk in very fuzzy terms about. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake, and I will take those as comments as there are no questions. Are there any further comments, questions, to the corporate management, 44 and 45? Member for Thebacha.
I listened to some of the comments around the table. Economic recovery is extremely important. Economic recovery means new dreams, new developments, new things. When I hear comments that are, "These monies and allocations were given for certain projects. They can't be changed to universal childcare. They cannot be changed to something else" -- when we sit around this table and we're talking about infrastructure and we're not even discussing that in that right department, it amazes me on some of the things that are brought here at this level in that sense.
I, too, agree with universal childcare. I, too, agree with all these things. Can't have everything if you don't have infrastructure that is going to carry this territory forward. We have mines closing. We have lost a lot of jobs with this mine. We looked at it this morning. That's a lot of jobs we're talking about. How are you going to rebuild the territory if you don't have dreams and you don't have an amazing infrastructure ability to really want to do something entirely with what we got and ensuring that the federal government helps us with Indigenous procurement so that we can move forward and ownership with the Indigenous peoples because those are the things that could actually be done if you actually want to do it.
From what I see in the discussions in the past, we can do that. You can do anything you want if you put your mind to it. I firmly believe in that. I'm very much a business person; I always have been, all my life. I never depended on government, most of the time. I am very pro-business. I always will be. Other people have other agendas, and that's fine. We can't all think the same, but I know for sure that the three main projects that are designated in our mandate agenda is what we agreed on. The majority is always what we agree on.
There are a couple of things that I noticed in the last day or so that puzzle me about Infrastructure, and it is mainly to deal with the Taltson. I am very much about the Taltson expansion, and now I see that the Minister has appointed the same old board again, all deputy ministers, no arm's length, and that really concerns me. You have very capable people, the president and everyone else at NCPC, who could maybe think of different ideas instead of thinking in tunnel vision, like most governments do, and do something entirely different and think out of the box. Yet, we appoint all these deputy ministers back to a board, instead of having an arm's length board of governors in the governance aspect of the NCPC, and that would also include the Taltson expansion. I want to ask the Minister: how did she decide on this, again? Minister Archie, would you answer my question, please?
Just to be clear, I think that is under the next section, the Taltson. On the corporate management, we've only got the three line items. If you want, I can give you the question when we get to the next section, if that's okay, on the Taltson.
[Microphone turned off]
If you have questions on the items that are in this section...
[Microphone turned off]
Member for Thebacha.
Sorry, Madam Chair. I am getting too tired. I said I wanted to make sure, Madam Chair, that I just put a statement in on the corporate management side, too, because I am very strong on making sure that we, as a government, do not think of only all these other things. We have to have a balance, I know that, with climate change, environment, and stuff, but we also have to move forward. I am not going to ask any questions. I don't know how the Minister feels about that. I just want to see how she feels about that, because I sit here and I listen. As a businessperson and being 50 years in business, it puzzles me, sometimes, how this government thinks, so maybe Minister Archie could just give me an insight on her insight. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Thebacha. Minister of Infrastructure, do you have any comments?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. I thank the Member for her questions around some of the infrastructure projects because you look at this and these projects were part of our mandate. It's part of our Assembly, and for us to look at proceeding with some of the projects, if and where we can, I think, is important. I did speak earlier about some of the federal funding that we receive, and we need to continue to pursue more and more funding as we start to link up some of our roads to get communities connected, to make best use of some of our mineral resources and just our resources in general that are out there. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Did you have anything further, Member for Thebacha?
No, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm looking at three maps, right now, and I just want to be honest with each and every one of you in here: I am very conflicted about all of this, the SGP, in particular. Last night, we had a hearing in SCEDE on the wolves and caribou and some of the calving grounds. We talked about that yesterday, in particular. Then, I'm looking at another map here, with the SGP, where it goes, what the ultimate end routes are going to be and where it starts out. That's something else I'm looking at. I went on Wikipedia, and I thought, "I want to see exactly where my riding sits." This sits right in my riding, so I think it's appropriate that I actually say something about this.
It is about balance. I know that the YKDFN and the GNWT worked out a deal to do the environmental assessment, and for me, that part is good, the environmental assessment, to go down that route. To me, that means that there is food being put on plates for my constituents. That is so important. You don't get anywhere by being totally on one side of the fence or being totally on the other side of the fence. You have to try to find that fine line and do what is best for your people. That's where I sit, right now. I look at this, and I want to think about: where are we going to be sitting 50 years from now, down the road? What are our caribou herds going to be looking like? What is our development going to be looking like? I always try to find solutions through this. I looked at one map here, and I am happy that, looking through some of the plans for this, there are a bunch of routes, at least, to find ways to not disturb wildlife as best they can.
I liked when I kind of went through some of the other developments we have, because there are not only diamond mines. There is other development, and it's important. This is what kept our economy afloat for a very long time, and we still have be mindful of that. When I drove over to Deninu Kue, I drove by Pine Point, and there used to be a railroad there. They took it down because the zinc mine closed down at Pine Point many years ago, but now, they are reopening it. They are talking about revisiting that and going and finding a mutual, beneficial deal, there, with the Deninu Kue and with other parties; of course, with the Metis. That is what I want to see. Too many times, we've had so many developments, no matter what the development was, no matter what the infrastructure was. We talked about Taltson. They came in, and we had no benefits for the longest time. For me, from my point of view, I am sick of seeing that. From here on forward, I will only support these big projects if we see our people benefit, up in the North; our Indigenous companies benefit. Because, if we don't, then what? What are we going to have left for our future generations?
I know that, in the future, I will probably, myself here sitting in this House, have some tough decisions to make, but right now, the way I feel about it, there is a balanced approach to it. You still have to find ways to keep your people working and to balance that fine line of respecting the environment and respecting how your ancestors used to hunt. My great-grandparents, they used to hunt in a lot of these hunting grounds. Again, I'm looking at the map. It's a vast map that my constituents from Ndilo, Detah, Lutselk'e, and Fort Resolution used to hunt, and they still do. You can't forget that.
I don't have too many questions on that right now, but like I said, it's about balance through all of this. That is where my mind sits on that. I don't want to sound too cheesy, but I do love the North. I love the people. I love the sea. I am so passionate about this, and that is why I am sitting here. However, as leaders, we are going to have to make those tough choices to keep our economy afloat and to try to, at the same time, keep our caribou herds alive. We have to respect our environment and try to find that way through. I am hoping we have a lot of very good experts to help us navigate this. We have not only just one department. We have ENR that we have to partner up with. We have a lot of partnerships with Indigenous governments up North, around us, and we have to always be mindful of that and find collaborative approaches for how we want to navigate this. That is where I stand on this.
This almost sounded like a Commissioner's address speech, but no, I am really passionate about this. Like I said, there are going to be some tough choices, but this is all about balance. That is something I want to say. I really have a lot still. We are one year in, but we still have a few years left. That means there is going to be a lot of consultation with my leaders in my riding and a lot of my constituents, and I really need to get a good, solid pulse of where they want to go. We still have to think about the Akaitcho that would likely be signed. We have to think about those things and the Metis, as well. We can't forget about the Metis and those implications. I just want to leave it at that. I will leave that as a comment. I don't have questions. As I said before, if anything pops up in my head, I usually just shoot an email to the Ministers or the Premier, and that is how I will go about that. Okay. Marsi cho, and thank you very much.
Thank you, Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. Are there any further comments or questions to the corporate management under Infrastructure on pages 44 and 45? Seeing none, I will call the activity. Infrastructure, corporate management, infrastructure investments, $30,533,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
We will now turn to programs and services on page 46, with information items from page 47 through to 49. Members, any questions comments? Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. If we look at our asset infrastructure, we get that $465 million deficit. Then, if we looked at our roads, I am sure it's another billion. If we look at our airports, it's probably more. Then, I think, if we looked at the Northwest Territories Power Corporation, it would probably be the most terrifying of all of them. I see in here we have a number of hydro projects. We have a number of new kind of Taltson pre-expansion, Bluefish Hydro Upgrade. I am just looking for someone to explain to me the relationship between us spending infrastructure dollars for the Power Corporation and their budget. If we spend this money, does part of it come out of their budget? Do they have an obligation to pay a part of this infrastructure through rate increases? Can someone explain the relationship between NTPC putting together their capital needs and then it ultimately getting into Infrastructure's programs and services capital needs? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to defer this over to Mr. Loutitt.
Mr. Loutitt.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's getting late in the day. Basically, we provide money to NTPC for projects that they undertake, like facility upgrades, and we'll management projects on their behalf. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Deputy Minister. Member for Yellowknife North.
Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I recognize there is this tension with every jurisdiction and their power corporation and the power corporation supposedly having to run rates that keep their power consistent and allow them to maintain their infrastructure. Then, consistently power corporations do not want to raise rates, so they just do not maintain their infrastructure. Then, the government has to bail them out. Hence, we are subsidizing the Power Corporation, which we have done multiple times and are continuing to do here. My question, though, is: when we build all of these new upgrades and maintenance for the Power Corporation, are they required to go recoup any of that infrastructure cost through a rate increase? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to get Mr. Loutitt to answer that. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Deputy Minister Loutitt.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The projects that we are funding for NTPC, just for clarification, is ISET money, where it's federal funding where the NTPC pays 25 percent, the feds pay 25 percent, which is charged to the rate payer, only the 25 percent share that is done in this manner. It's actually not GNWT money we are working with. NTPC provides the funding. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Deputy Minister. Member for Yellowknife North.
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. That is the answer I was looking for, where the 25-percent dollars come from. They ultimately come from NTPC, and in theory, NTPC has to get all of its money through rates. Do we have any information of -- there is quite a lot of infrastructure in here. NTPC is clearly spending money. They need to be spending that money. Do they have plans to go to the public utility board for a rate increase? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, that is the process. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to switch gears here to the Taltson expansion pre-construction. Right now, in the South Slave, they have a surplus of power. They actually have the cheapest power in the NWT, and Taltson expansion is a plan to make more power to an area with a surplus. Can I just get a sense of: this Taltson expansion pre-construction money here, I assume it's federal dollars. When is the quickest timeline we would see that, after expansion, it actually connects to somewhere we could sell that power, whether that is down south or whether that is in the North Slave or to a mine? What is the projected timeline to actually sell any of that surplus in the South Slave? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Yellowknife North. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to get Mr. Loutitt to answer that question. Thank you.
Mr. Loutitt.
At this point, I am not certain we have an actual timeline. We are still in the early stages. We are still working, obviously, with our Indigenous partners in moving this project forward. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am not sure how much I can get into Power Corporation questions here, but this is ultimately where the Power Corporation's infrastructure finds its way into the budget. In the South Slave right now, we produce that surplus of power. We essentially just spill power over the dam every year because we have no one to sell it to. Alberta is never going to buy it; neither is Saskatchewan. Our power is too expensive. Arguably, some of the mines probably will not even buy it, assuming diesel remains competitive. Some of the people who are buying it are commercial heaters right now. We have allowed them to install infrastructure to heat their buildings with electricity and pinned it to a price point that is competitive with diesel. Are there any plans to expand that? Can we make it available to residents in the South Slave so that they can heat their homes with electricity and actually save money? Thank you, Madam Chair.
