Thank you, Mr. Chair. So Mr. Chair, there I mean, the short answer is yes. But I'd like to just turn it over to deputy minister on that front. There were conversations had not only with Department of Finance but the Department of Infrastructure as well, and the deputy minister might be better placed to just give a bit of assurance in that regard. Thank you.
Deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to give a little more detail on that, we did have discussions with the federal government, specifically Infrastructure Canada, and they had extended the timeline on those projects to 2033. So that's within our expected timeline to finishing those projects. So we have worked with the federal government to ensure that that federal funding continues to flow within the new timeline. Thank you.
Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. So is all of this stuff in compliance with the fiscal responsibility policy? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, at this point it's still in compliance, Mr. Chair. I mean, again, it's the actuals that we see the actuals that we'd be getting numbers on in the fall is by the way in which you would measure whether or not you're in compliance with fiscal responsibility policy. But at this point, Mr. Chair, these changes are. Thank you.
Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. So are all of these projects, you know, cropping up again in the 20232024 Capital Estimates? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I want to make sure I have not missed anything. Perhaps I'll turn it over to the deputy minister or assistant deputy minister just to confirm where they may fall in our new year capital planning, please.
Deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as the Minister noted before, this negative supplementary appropriation is intended to make sure that the capital budget for this current year is or that this year is reflective of what will actually be spent and then the capital estimates will give future years. And so these projects are within that new capital estimates or revised capital estimates that are currently tabled in the ledge. Thank you.
Mr. O'Reilly.
Yeah, okay, thanks. Look, I'll cut this short. I think that this is probably better financial management but it still reflects our overspending on not overspending, over budgeting of capital and we just we, for a whole variety of different reasons, just can't get the money out the door. We can't get the work done, whether it's COVID, whether, you know, there's no contractors available to do the work, whatever, you know, supply chain delays, maybe there's not enough folks in procurement services to get this stuff out. I have no sense of that. But I think this is just a reflection of, again, our over budgeting on capital which means we have to set aside more money to get an operating surplus so there's less money for programs and services to meet people's basic needs. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mahsi, Mr. O'Reilly. Any further general comments?
Seeing none, seeing no further questions on the general comments, we will review the supplementary estimates by department and activity. Does the committee agree to proceed to the detail contained in the tabled document?
Agreed.
Committee, we will begin on page 5, Department of Infrastructure, operations expenditures, energy and strategic initiatives, not previously authorized, negative $29,736,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Department of Infrastructure, operations expenditure, total department, not previously authorized, negative $29,736,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Committee, we will turn to page 6, Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, community operations, not previously authorized, $48,106,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $48,106,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Committee, we will turn to page 7, Education, Culture and Employment, capital investment expenditures, junior kindergarten to grade 12 school services, not previously authorized, negative $400,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Education, Culture and Employment, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, negative $400,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Committee, we will turn to page 8.
Department of Health and Social Services, capital investment expenditures, health and social programs, not previously authorized, negative $1,578,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Department of Health and Social Services, capital investment expenditures, longterm and continuing care services, not previously authorized, negative $3,718,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Department of Health and Social Services, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $5,296,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Committee, we will turn to pages 9 and 10. Department of Infrastructure, capital investment expenditures, asset management, not previously authorized, negative $21,288,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, capital investment expenditures, energy and strategic initiatives, not previously authorized, $51,227,000. Does committee agree? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yeah, so there's 15 about $15 million that's not going to be spent on socalled Slave Geological Province AllWeather Road Highway Environmental Assessment. So how does that affect the timeline for that project? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, at this point, as Members may be aware, there is a process underway right now for a regional strategic environmental assessment. I think I hope I haven't misstated the proper title for it, but it's a process that goes through the board. So there is a delay but for that process in order for that other process to take place. There's certainly, I think, some hope that as that process is underway that it will actually may ultimately actually benefit that overall region and whatever the future project might look like. So while the specific money that is here for environmental assessment is pushed now into 20232024, again, pending what may be happening in this other process here first, that might well actually ultimately help catch up to where a longer term vision of the project might want to be at. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mahsi, Minister. Mr. O'Reilly, anything further?
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm glad the clock got started there. Yeah, well, I'm glad the Minister volunteered all of that because that was my next question actually, because in the letter that this government sent to I'm not sure exactly. I guess it was probably Minister Vandal about the regional study that the Tlicho government has asked, there was kind of two things that our government mentioned in there. One was that we supported participant funding but they said the other thing was that a regional study shouldn't delay the planning for this road in any way. And that's not what the Minister just said here. So I'm very happy to get that on the record that our government is fine having this road delayed while the regional study is underway and get the results from that first to provide a proper planning context and direction for whether this thing is a good thing or not. So I'm very happy to get that information from the Minister, and I look forward to GNWT actually formalizing that position and putting it forward to the federal minister. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I guess I don't have any other comments to make. I know the departments are working all the departments are working together on that right now, and I don't know the current state of the matter that's before the board. But again, as I have said, I think we're all quite hopeful that subject to how that unfolds, which is out of the GNWT's hands, that it will ultimately be for the benefit of that region. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks. Well, whether it's to the benefit of the region or not that's I think part of the question, is that the regional study needs to grapple with is, you know, whether you want a road or whether you want to have caribou. And especially at a time where the caribou numbers are so low with the Bathurst herd, and I just don't think that they can handle this kind of disturbance. But that's the kind of issues that the regional study needs to deal with and to figure out if this sort of thing would actually be a net benefit at the end of the day. But, again, I'm very happy to hear that the Minister of Finance say that our government doesn't have a problem delaying this project so that the regional study can be done. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Minister, I'll allow you to comment if you so wish.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I'm really wearing more of an ITI hat when I'm speaking about the project, and ENR actually is the lead on it. So this probably isn't the right time or place to get into the weeds of what may or may not be happening on that front with the board. Again, as I said, Mr. Chair, I know our government is at that table, as is the Tlicho government. I believe other Indigenous governments are there. And we do need to see what that process how that process unfolds. We're not the lead. The board is leading that process. So I think all parties see potential benefit from it, and we'll see where that gets us. The money that's here is pushed to 20232024. And the Member asked me if that's going to delay the whole project. Mr. Chair, again, it's my hope that it does not and that the regional assessment process does not either. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mahsi for that. Mr. O'Reilly.
