Thank you, Madam Chair. I know we have that total here. Let me start with the deputy minister, and we will have that available.
Deputy minister MacKay.
So thank you, Madam Chair. The total - so the total capital budget now will be approximately $534 million. I'm just looking for the exact amount. But maybe, Terence, do you have that?
Mr. Courtoreille.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So the total approved capital budget for 20232024 is $326 million. And if the current proposed carryover of $129 million is approved, it would be added to that $326 million. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks. I wasn't - didn't have any calculator but we're talking about $500 million. So how does this differ from the capital estimates and the sups that have been happening in the past when, you know, I think this is where - we're in the same ballpark now, when the new Fiscal Responsibility Policy was supposed to impose like a $260 million cap on capital spending. And so now the department's asking us to approve sups that are going to push it up over that amount; am I getting this correct? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the Fiscal Responsibility Policy isn't where the cap on the capital projects came in. That is an approach towards capital planning that we had imposed to put a cap on department spending of $260 million. That was introduced in 20232024, but it didn't exist in prior years, and it certainly didn't exist under the past Assembly, which is where a lot of projects wind up moving forward. So to the extent that if we hadn't put that cap in 20232024 and the 20232024 budget had started out much higher as it had been over the two, three, and many years before that, we'd be looking at a much higher total envelope. So, you know, to begin with, you know, that's still the good news of the cap that was put in. And it's going to be continuing going forward, and we'll start to see the fruits of those labours where there's less to be carried over because the capital plan from a starting point is not as big as it was. But - I don't have a clock here in front of me so I'm trying to be conscious of the time but, you know, asking about where that's - that cap is still there, and it's going to move forward. But there are some things that were carried forward because the cap wasn't imposed in the past, and the budget was very big in the past with a lot of projects sitting on the books. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, okay thanks. If I wasn't confused before, now I am. But look, what we're being asked to do then is approve a whole bunch of carryovers which means we're not getting money out the door, and I don't know why, but if the Minister wants to talk about that, that's fine. But we're not getting money out the door, we're being asked to approve more money that's probably not going to get out the door even this summer, so. And I think it's probably going to exceed this cap.
What's the purpose of having a cap when we're going to go over it again and again and again? So I'm going to have a lot of difficulty voting in favour of this, Madam Chair, just because we're being asked to approve more money that's not going to get out the door, and I think we need to be much more careful about this because the more money we spend on capital, the more - the bigger the operating surplus has to be which means you got to cut back on programs and services for our citizens and I just don't think that's a good way to operate. And I've been very critical of this government from the beginning, even in the last Assembly, about over budgeting on capital projects. And that's exactly what this is all about.
But I want to ask the Minister is there anywhere in that - are we still going to be in compliance with the Fiscal Responsibility Policy if this is approved? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we spent $285 million in 20222023, which actually is a pretty significant amount when you compare it to what was being spent over ten years before that. And particularly considering those are postCOVID years that a lot of challenges were being faced, both private sector and public sector.
Madam Chair, at this point we would reconcile we reconcile the Fiscal Responsibility Policy in the fall. I have - and we do track it over time, and we'll be seeing the most recent up to date numbers when we come forward with the capital budget in August.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I guess I'm asking the Minister, then, to prepare a page in each of the supplementary estimates as they come forward, and this should be a public document, maybe as an appendix or something, that demonstrates that even with the approval of the supplementary estimate, the GNWT's going to remain in compliance with the Fiscal Responsibility Policy. Is that something the Minister is prepared to do moving forward? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I will be happy to do that, something to that effect moving forward. And that was our intention with the capital plan for August, and we can certainly do that when there's infrastructure sups as well. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions? Member for Yellowknife North.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I share some of my colleague from Frame Lake's frustrations. I think one of the issues is that the capital estimates and the supplementary estimates are, you know, financial documents created for public accounting purposes and they're really bad documents to try and figure out what is going on with our construction projects. I think an ideal system would be some sort of portal that would list all of the things we're building, when it was tendered, when it's being carried over, perhaps a reason why it's got delayed and ultimately showing when something is completed and falls off the books. I believe the Department of Infrastructure has been promising some sort of tracking beyond just, you know, these capital budgetary documents for a while now. Do we have any update on something like that coming into existence? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Madam Chair, all I am able to say is to confirm that indeed that does seem like a very good idea, that there is something being worked on, and hopefully it will be in place - well, I can't give a timeline for it to be in place. It's not an initiative necessarily of the Department of Finance but I can commit to getting a timeline to committee. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, and I do think that the Department of Finance prepares a briefing note for every single one of these line items that they share in confidence and it doesn't exist publicly, I think a lot of that information would probably save a lot of frustration of us asking the questions to just bring out basic facts on the record. But since we don't have that, I will ask some of those basic facts throughout.
Beginning with I have a different calculation of how much money we lapsed. It was quite a lot more than $2.7 million. But I guess I'll start with can someone tell me what projects $2.7 million we lapsed? Thank you.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, let me go to Mr. Courtoreille and see if he can - if he has a breakdown available and if not, we can provide it to committee. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Courtoreille.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm happy to read this out but I am mindful of time. And I'm in your hands, ma'am, if you want me to read it out, I can, or we can provide a summary.
If you want - Member, did you want to use up your time and have him read it out, the list?
Yeah, I - well, I guess, how many projects did we lapse and can we table it in the House or report this somewhere publicly or if not, then read it out. However it gets out publicly. Thank you.
Thank you. Will the Minister - yes, will the Minister commit to putting this out publicly?
That's fine, Madam Chair.
Okay, Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you. Yeah, it's tough. I guess the ones that I would have - can I get some explanation, perhaps generally, about why we're lapsing things? Sometimes I understand we have to lapse millions of dollars because it doesn't meet the category for a carryover, but the actual project will go forward. We just didn't get the contract in place so it didn't meet FMB approval and it will get back on the list. And sometimes my understanding is we go out for tender on something, it shows up over budget, and we lapse it and it falls off the capital plan. We are no longer ever going ahead with that project despite the Legislative Assembly having previously approved some starting budget for it.
So my question there is, is there any projects that were previously approved that will just not be going ahead and they have fallen off the capital plan? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Madam Chair, there certainly are some projects that may not have advanced in 20222023 that have not necessarily been removed from the infrastructure acquisition plan and may then still be on that plan, which I would draw a difference of when we see the capital estimates and - so they may - again, we may be adjusting the capital estimates from 20222023 but still seeing a project on the infrastructure acquisition plan. I'll pause there, but I can also turn it to Mr. Courtoreille if the Member would like to have a greater detailed example or detailed description. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Courtoreille.
Thanks, Madam Chair. And just to follow up, previously it was mentioned that there was $54 million lapsing in the 20222023 capital plan. But as part of the improved capital planning process that we're working with departments on, we're allowing departments to recash flow budgets to future years for projects that have been delayed or construction is now going to be - it's now realized that construction's going to happen in a future year. So out of that $54 million, $51 million was actually recash flow to a future year and that's why I was hesitant to read that list out because it is really quite lengthy. The difference between the 54 and the 51 is the 2.7 or the $3 million that I quoted earlier. That is the amount that technically is falling off the plan. That would not be accommodated for in this supplementary request or a future budget. Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you. That was very helpful in helping me understand why I have $54 million and we have $2.7 million. I appreciate that. I guess what this also leads me into is, is there any hope of publishing some sort of capital plan? You know, I know we have a capital acquisition plan, I know we have a capital needs assessment that goes, I believe, ten years, maybe even 30 years. I know the Department of Infrastructure has another plan with deferred maintenance and things in it. But there's nowhere I can look to kind of see what the GNWT has in the lineup and what it's planning to build. You have to really well, you get it on the capital estimates. That's the only place you can see that. Is there any plans going forward that we could publish what we are planning to build going forward more than one fiscal year? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Madam Chair, this is an area where I know there's been a point of discord, perhaps, in the past. There is a hesitancy in putting too much information out as I provided this explanation in response in the past, because we only firstly appropriate year by year. So until something is in the capital plan and not just the infrastructure acquisition plan, but the actual capital estimates, then we can appropriate for the year through the capital estimates so there's a hesitancy to put anything out in advance of that because it hasn't been approved by the Legislative Assembly and because going forward, the budgets would therefore not have been approved by the Legislative Assembly. So that is the standing hesitation. I know certainly not the only government that takes that approach. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North.
Yeah, I guess, is there any willingness - you know, I guess - to me, you could publish capital needs assessment and it doesn't mean that you're going to build the things and then we know that our capital needs assessment is billions more dollars than we could ever hope to have. But it would be nice to publicly actually say that, to say that we have $3 billion in needs and we're spending $250 million. Is there any hope of the needs assessment actually being published? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that actually may be a slight deviation from what we've heard in the past. Let me take that back to not only the Department of Finance but infrastructure and possibly executive. That is a much bigger question. I mean, even a needs assessment obviously would be not a small thing to perhaps have to coordinate between all the different departments and regions. But let me get - I'll certainly commit to coming back with a more conferred response with all departments. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to probably reiterate a few things that my colleagues have said, but I too am disappointed to see the amount of money lapsing. While I do recognize and understand the government's explanation that this money will come back in future years, what it represents to me is money that was not put into our economy oftentimes at the inability of the government and departments to do their jobs properly or to get things out the door on time that then has caused communities to suffer financially. A great example I keep bringing up is the Tulita Health Centre. I keep being told that the reason it hasn't moved forward is because of COVID. Well, it's 2023 now. The community has not been keeping people out of the community for the last at least a year, if not longer, and the project has not moved forward. That project could have been done even during COVID, with proper safety protocols in place, and that money could have then been injected into the Northwest Territories economy and the local economy of Tulita. And it's an opportunity that's lost.
When I look at the Department of Infrastructure, I see many opportunities lost opportunities to keep our residents employed, opportunities to inject federal cash into our territory, opportunities to improve our infrastructure, and just basically improve the quality of life for our residents. And so to me, again, this is a terrible - like, it's a shame that this money is being lost. It's being moved forward, yes, but we've already had conversations numerous times this session about what the power of that dollar buys you anymore. So as the infrastructure department continues to put off building things, those costs of those projects in all departments skyrocket, and we now are sitting at things that are costing two, three, four times the amount that they were just a year or two ago. So this $54 million that's now going to come back at a later date will not be worth the $54 million that it is worth right now. And honestly, I think it's the failing of our government. I have no questions. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any further general comments? Seeing none, we will review the supplementary estimates by department. Does committee agree to proceed to the detailed contained in the tabled document?
Agreed.
Committee, we will begin on page 5. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 20232024, Department of Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, junior kindergarten to grade 12, school services, not previously authorized, $659,000. Does committee agree?
