Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I don't know that any parties to any contracts want to end up in any kind of dispute resolution mechanism. I mean, that's I'd go so far as to say they don't. That's not the preferred course of action for anyone related to a contract, including the GNWT. We can't certainly control when entities want to make claims against the GNWT. There are times where that is going to happen. And this happened in this particular instance. Again, it's an almost $200 million project. And that was back starting in, you know, now a decade ago so certainly worth, no doubt, much more than today.
You know, as far as the settlement process itself, again there was discussions that were had between the parties involving counsel, which is a standard operating exactly as I would expect them to do, to have counsel engaged for something of a technical nature like this, done within the parameters of the agreement that was previously negotiated. And then when discussions got to a point that required a mediator, then a mediator was engaged in order to ensure then that the two parties continue to have their counsel involved and to use the mediator services to reach a point where, you know, what was reasonable in the circumstances under the agreement could be achieved. So am I satisfied that the agreement was adhered to? Yes. Do I want to see agreements get to the point that they have to be in some form mediated or litigated? Of course not. But am I satisfied that that agreement was followed? In this case, I'd say yes.
Member for Thebacha.
Madam Chair, you know, we sit here and as and we're using public monies and, you know, in private industry, this would never happen, okay. And it's you know, being in small business for 50 years and considering all the aspects that would happen if you had to go to litigation is really alarming, that we could just go and do this with a brush of whatever. And, you know, I have to really think seriously before I vote on this and I just don't like the whole taste of it because it's not okay for transparency and accountability issues when it comes to public monies, because we're doing this on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories, and I have a real problem with that. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't (audio).
Thank you. Member for Tu NedheWiilideh.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm also concerned that in regards to how we managed this project. And you know, if we get a price of $81.3 million and now we're looking at $194 million, and now we're asking for a total additional cost of $33,750,000 extra, it's concerning to me as the MLA for the Tu NedheWiilideh riding. I mean, I just got back from a funeral service in Lutselk'e and, you know, I'd been advocating for better internet services for my community and, you know, we were told that it's going to be a big improvement in December. I'm still having troubles. I don't see any improvements in that community.
Having said that, though, I mean, you know and I agree with my colleagues that there's got to be a better way of doing this. In the business world, you know, you'd be you know, these guys should be holding all the risk of $81.3 million. And now we're spending, you know, almost $227 million just to get through this. And, you know, I asked for ice roads for my community, $2 million, housing, infrastructure dollars, homeownership repairs, etcetera, and I don't see it. But yet guys like NorthwesTel are, you know it seems like they're the only monopoly and game in town that are providing this type of services, and this government continues to work with them and acknowledge that, you know, they're the only players in town. Well, you know, when I come back from Lutselk'e, because the people there are so tired of waiting for better services, they're starting to purchase starlink satellites there. And they're improving their systems in the community because they NorthwesTel is nonexistent. So I'm just going to make a comment on this because, I mean, at this point, you know, I mean, I have a lot of, you know, wants for my community. I mentioned it to the Minister. I mentioned it to the Premier. I mentioned to the housing minister. Again, you know, it's really tough for me to sit back and find out that, you know, we're spending all kinds of money here and we don't I don't see the benefits in my riding. So I'm I can't support this increase. Thank you. It's just a comment, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Monfwi.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I do have an issue with this too as well because we've been asking on Highway No. 3 to have cell service because that is the busiest highway and even you, Minister of Finance, said it before that it is a safety risk that, you know, since there's there's no cell service. I just I have a serious concern about that because we've been asking for cell service on Highway No. 3. We have a lot of incidents. We have life lost. And even last year when there was an incident on the highway, you know, like, I was talking about this young man at Boundary Creek, like, in because there's no cell service, like, you know, we're quite a ways and instead he got he caught a ride to Behchoko and instead of going to Yellowknife because everybody was going this way, and then where the they didn't have nothing to call the ambulance with.
So it is a safety risk. She even acknowledged that so which is good, you know, but. And we can't even provide cell service for Highway No. 3. And the previous MLA my previous MLA had mentioned it too numerous times. And I've said it quite a few times here. And other colleagues, they have mentioned it before too as well, because Highway No. 3 is the busiest highway, and everybody uses that. It's a lifeline to Yellowknife. And for internet service, when I did my constituent visit to Wekweeti, the students over there have asked that can we can you do something about can you talk to the government to do something about improving the internet service at their school, especially at the school. They said it's really poor, we can't do much, you know. And I did talk to the Minister about that. And I thought, you know, like here, $27 million, but they're asking additional from 81 million to $194 million. I mean, I do have a serious concern about that. It would be nice if they're going to be spending that much money, you know, do cell service, provide cell service for Highway No. 3. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. All right. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 20222023, Department of Finance, infrastructure expenditures, management board secretariat, not previously authorized, $27,750,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3 oh, you had a question? Sorry. Oh, I just didn't Member for Nunakput.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. No, I'm just going to make a quick comment. You know, as Regular MLAs, this is the most money. Like, we haven't even secured this kind of monies in as Regular MLAs over the last few years in regards to adding into the budget. You know, for myself, I see this as just bad project management. All this money we could have put into youth sport, health care, the suicide prevention. Just like that they could come up with a sup for something like this, out of the blue, but nothing they don't add in nothing for what's really needed in our territory, you know. No effort. Also no effort made by cuts within the Department of Finance to cover these extra costs. Are they cutting anything? But that's more of a comment and just bad management. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 20222023, Department of Finance, infrastructure expenditures, management board secretariat, not previously authorized, $27,750,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Members, I'm going to ask for a show of hands on that. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There was quite a number of comments made, Madam Chair. I was hoping I might have an opportunity to respond to some of them?
I think we're going to let's entertain the Minister to comment and then we'll I'll call it, and then we'll have a show of hands on the vote. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this is a $200 million asset with some of the budgets dating back to 2013, so probably an asset that is worth far more than that today. It's an asset that was built through a P3, which gave us the ability to not pay that full cost value of that asset, and yet to be able to have a point of presence for the internet across and up the entire value. And today, Madam Chair, earlier there was raised with me the fact that the auditor general putting out a report about telecommunications. Again, I only had a very brief opportunity to look at it, but one of the things that came out was that, in fact, the Northwest Territories has better internet access than many First Nations and Indigenous communities across Canada, than many rural and remote communities across Canada, and I have no doubt that part of that is the fact that we have that point of presence running up the valley.
So as for being, you know whether or not there's bad management or bad project management, there was an asset that was built and delivered; it is being actively used; it has delivered on providing a point of presence. As far as the details of the fact that some one of those parties decided to, under the agreement, raise some concerns about project overruns, Madam Chair, again, that process went through the project agreement.
I appeared in front of committee. I appeared in front of committee and the opportunity to speak in an incamera proceeding about those details. I can't speak to it publicly because there's an agreement, as there always is, including in all private business transactions when there's disputes between parties, which is what keeps an awful lot of lawyers employed because it happens all the time, I can't speak to it publicly because I am under a settlement agreement. I could have spoken to it when I was under in confidentiality incamera proceedings. I can't do it here.
But, Madam Chair, again, it's a $200 million asset. I realize there's now been a settlement reached on a many years' process. It avoided the litigation risk. Going through mediation is not litigation. It is not going to court. We avoided going to court. The parties were able to reach a settlement. The settlement is now before the committee so that the public is aware that there was a settlement reached. I suppose at this point I won't say anything else about it. The concerns around providing different and other capital projects in different communities can go through the capital planning process. It's unrelated to the fact that there's been a settlement reached under the Mackenzie Valley Fibre Link Project. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 20222023, Department of Finance, infrastructure expenditures, management board secretariat, not previously authorized, $27,750,000. I'm going to ask Members if they are in favour or agree to please raise your hand so I can...
So since I called the vote, can you all those in favour, excluding the Minister who wasn't in her seat when I called it, all in favour, please raise your hand. Or that's agreed with this.
Nine. So that's eight. All those opposed? Three, six, seven. Okay. This is carried.
Carried
We will now take a break.
SHORT RECESS
We are continuing on with our Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 20222023, Department of Finance, infrastructure expenditures, Office of the Chief Information Officer, not previously authorized, negative $2,964,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 202220223, Department of Finance, operation expenditures, total department, not previously authorized $24,786,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Committee, we will now turn to page 6. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 20222023, Department of Health and Social Services, capital investment expenditures, health and social service programs, not previously authorized, $91,000. Does committee agree? Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm wondering if the Minister can just provide some information as to what Safe LongTerm Care Fund is and what it's used for. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So it is a federal fund. I can't necessarily speak to the details of the federal fund. But for the purposes here, it is supporting the nursing call bells in the Deh Cho Region and as well as in Avens Seniors. So in Avens Senior Home, it's to provide for oxygen concentrators, shower shares, patient lifts, medication carts, fridges, infection prevention and control. So, you know and that's in relation to, again, a longterm care facility. And in the Deh Cho region, it's related to nursing call bells, again in relation to longterm care facilities. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, is the reason this is coming forward in a sup because it was additional funding received from the federal government, is it annual funding, and how many years can we expect to see this come forward if it is something that is multiyear funding block? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe, Madam Chair, that it was part of an unspent balance from the previous fiscal year, and so this is the remaining amount that was unspent now carried forward and fully satisfies the amount that was available. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any further questions or comments?
Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 20222023, Department of Health and Social Services, capital investment expenditures, health and social service programs, not previously authorized, $91,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 20222023, Department of Health and Social Services, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $91,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Committee, please turn to page 7. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 20222023, Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment, capital investment expenditures, economic diversification and business support, not previously authorized, $726,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 20222023, Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment, capital investment expenditures, mineral and petroleum resources, not previously authorized, negative $1,717,000. Does committee agree? Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I see we're moving $1.7 million over to I assume another year for the mineral administration and registry system, also known as MARS. I believe this is the system that will one day hopefully allow us to have online map staking. Can I just get an update in the timing for this project and when we expect to have online map staking in the Northwest Territories? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the Member is correct. This was moved over to the following fiscal year, which is expected to be when that amount will be fully spent.
As for project timelines and activities, we are expecting to have this contract awarded this fall, which means it would then be being built and then implemented thereafter over the next it takes approximately two years and with a golive date to follow. So, you know, early in 2025.
Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North.
Yeah, I guess 2025 for online map staking. You know, at one point, perhaps naively, I thought we were going to have that done, well, very quickly in this Assembly. I get, perhaps that this is a bit of a custom piece of software. Is there is it not possible to perhaps get online map staking a little faster? At one point, I believe there was suggestions about using other registries that, you know, exist everywhere else in Canada. Yeah, is there any way we can speed this up? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I have asked the very same question actually not so much of the folks of Finance but more from the folks at ITI, and I know that there is some effort underway to try and do a bit of parallel work but the online map staking program development depends very much on the regulations that it is then going to be applying. So what I understand the effort is right now is to try to put some work in parallel so that we're not entirely waiting for the final version of every regulation to be fully concluded with the Mineral Resources Act project before beginning the work of some of the background for online map staking development, procurement, etcetera. So I gather that some of that is now happening in tandem. I can go back and confirm whether or not that parallel process will accelerate the 2025 estimated date or whether that 2025 date is actually a result of that. That I don't know, but I'll go back and confirm. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. My colleague from Yellowknife North asked some of my questions, although and I look, I am in favour of moving to map staking, but I've got a lot of issues and concerns if the fees aren't raised to appropriate levels and companies are allowed to go in and speculate and tie up a whole bunch of land without actually having to do anything. That's just not a good place to be. But I'd like to know from the Minister how much have we actually spent on this MARS thing so far and what's the total budget for it. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not sure, Madam Chair, if I have the totals here in front of me. Let me check with the deputy minister first, please.
Thank you. Deputy minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't believe we do have those, the amount spent by the department on this in front of us here, but we can get back to the Member on that.
