Thank you, Madam Chair. No, I'm not doing over/unders. Thank you.
Member for Yellowknife North.
Yeah, you know, I don't want it in confidence. I think this is just completely undemocratic. We're heading into an election, and the next Assembly has to make the decision to do the same thing we did where you put the three major infrastructure projects in your mandate or to pick one. And there's strong arguments on either side. You know, there is some argument the way you get these built is you just kind of always keep them on the books and you play the lottery with the feds and, you know, you try and get the money based on what their priorities are. There's also an argument that maybe we should just pick one and try and get it done. But I think it's really unfair to the public, to everyone who's running, and to the next Assembly to not have an idea of the costs of the projects. It's worth noting that almost every hydro project everywhere goes over budget and over time. I don't think one's been built in Canada in the last decade that was on budget. So even if we're saying it's $2 billion, I think, like, 2.5, we'd be lucky. But I'm making these numbers up because the Minister will not share them. And I don't want them; I want the public to know how much it costs to build the Taltson Expansion. I guess I'll try and ask some other questions.
It's 60 megawatts. We did this over a decade ago. At that point, it was $1.2 billion, and we abandoned it because we couldn't get any longterm power purchasing agreements. Do we have anyone who wants to buy this power? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So part of what a significant portion of the work that was done was an analysis of the potential mining needs for really, for the entire region. I think people sometimes presume it's just for Slave Geologic only, but it does go far beyond that. I know that NTPC have already entered into MOU agreements with Pine Point and I believe with Norra Zinc, although I could stand to be corrected about that. But are also in discussions with some of the other mines in and around in the South Slave but also then through the North Slave and, again, not only with respect to Slave Geologic but also with respect to some of the gold mines and gold projects. You know, examples being, you know, Nighthawk for instance. They are similarly interested, of late, the mining project and I don't it in front of me, I'm forgetting the name, just outside of Yellowknife, a gold project. And then also the lithium companies that have been coming in and looking in and around Yellowknife. So the challenge that we do get into, Madam Chair, and I think if I may, 30 years ago got into, is do you build it and then hope that someone, you know, will buy the power, or do you wait for someone to promise you that they're going the power? We are at risk of being in that situation yet again and at risk of missing out on the opportunity to resolve the energy sustainability challenges that we have in the Northwest Territories, whether that is through an expansion of the hydropower capabilities that we have or whether it is because we decide we need another alternative. One way or another in the next ten years, we need an alternative because what we're doing now is not going to work and is not green and it is not cheap, and the federal government are only taxing us more. So we can certainly come to the conclusion of expanding the hydro capacity that we have in a way that will not include any further flooding, looking at that as an option and considering whether that's a priority, and then putting a final number to it when we've made that choice or not. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Member for Yellowknife North.
Yeah, that's all fine. I get the debate. I get the debate when to build it and, you know, this debate if you build it they will come. You know, I just don't understand why we can't have a rough estimate of what it's going to cost. It just doesn't it's like I'm having a debate with no idea. I don't even know what to ask next. Do we know the route yet? Did we make a decision on whether it's submarine or going around the lake? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So Madam Chair, that is, I think, probably the critical decision that needs to be made at the steering committee. And so, again, I suspect the Member knows, but for the public, there's a steering committee that is composed of the signatories to the original MOU, aside from the Salt River, who at the present moment have opted to not participate although are certainly welcome back, and that the steering committee is composed as the leadership and then the working group is composed of the officers or officials from GNWT as well along with those other governments. And that is part of my struggle with I don't disagree that the public has the opportunity in a territorial election to state their preference for a future economy, for energy resilience, for how we go about building big projects. But we are in a situation where if this project is going to be done differently and done right and done well and not get into a situation of, you know, extended blockages or concerns amongst the governments on whose traditional lands the project would be, doing it through the MOU and the steering committee process is taking some time. That is, back to the original question, it is precisely that. It's to ask when you know what that routing would be. We're down to a couple of choices. And with that in hand, it's deciding what that might look like in terms of an agreement between governments. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you. You know, I think this requires a very fulsome public debate. How much are we selling the power for? How much power are we selling? How long how many mines do we need to exist to buy it? What's the payback? You know, what is what are these projects doing in other jurisdictions? How much are their cost overruns? How much is it roughly going to cost? I just can't believe I'm being asked for money without any of that information. I guess can I have how much money right now is the government asking for this Taltson Expansion preconstruction? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Sorry, Madam Chair. Let me take that to Mr. Brennan. I may have just missed the question there.
Thank you. Mr. Brennan
Thank you, Madam Chair. For 20242025, we're proposing $3.5 million. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North.
Yeah, thank you. You know, and I get that's the nature of these; you got to do a lot of planning work and you got to spend a few million dollars. I mean, we've been spending I think since the 16th Assembly we've been spending a few million dollars every budget on Taltson to do some engineering assessments. And I get the project is kind of evolving and it's, you know, no longer going to the diamond mines and it's relying on a bunch of metal mines. I know Pine Point in their preliminary economic assessment says they're buying power from the Taltson at 11 cents a kilowatt hour, which is very, very cheap compared to everyone else. Do we have any idea what we would sell the power at Taltson for? Is it going to be significantly lower than everyone else in the territory pays? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So if I recall, there are estimates and ranges built in to the business case that depend upon what the market may be doing at any one time. I don't, in front of me, have whether it's above or below 11 cents.
Madam Chair, if I might just and I am conscious of time, but if I might just venture, I think if the MOU and steering committee partners can make a decision on the routing and then be able to say here is the project. The challenge we are in is we don't quite have the project and that's where the planning of the money that's being requested is to get to that point where we can come forward and say, here's the project. I fully agree that when you can say here is the project, that should be then part of fulsome debate here before the final big dollars are actually agreed to. I'll stop so the Member can ask me one more. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North. A quick one.
Yeah, I understand we've been asking the federal government for money for this so they must have a guess of what it's going to cost. And actually at one point, the Minister Vandal said that the money was very close. Like, he almost said he was giving it to us. I think it was coming out of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. So I'm assuming the feds know how much the project costs. And I mean, I don't know how they can if we haven't picked a route but they must know something. Are the feds giving us any money for Taltson any time soon, or did that kind of disappear with this whole first we have to go through the MOU process? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, they are quite keen on the project. The project has a sense of so many senses of being chicken and egg, whether it's with the mineral resource industry or whether it's with the federal government. It is difficult to make a decision amongst ourselves and the Indigenous governments within the territories and say here's our project and go to the federal government without knowing what the federal government is going to put on the table or just how much at the table they're going to sit. So those are two challenges, I think, with this. Again, I want to emphasize that when there is a project with a route and a commercial structure to be proposed of who is involved, it won't proceed and can't proceed until this House approves that money to go and to be spent. And at that point, there will be a project to be debated. There are, of course, earlier points in that decisionmaking. I'm, you know, mentioning some of them now, routing for example. But, again, given that the project partners are Indigenous governments, that's where the time is being spent right now is there with the notion that the or with the knowledge that the project would then come forward here. Right now, all of the funding is 100 percent federal, and wouldn't it be wonderful if it stays that way. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. And with that, Members, we're going to take a short break to give our interpreters some time to rest. They're the ones that are constantly speaking while we get to take turns. Thank you.
SHORT RECESS
I now call Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, we are on Infrastructure, energy and strategic initiatives. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Now I'm in the right place to ask about the Fort Simpson LNG and such.
In a presentation we were given, it was told that the relocation of the diesel plant was changed but it had a $3 million price tag. I'm a little bit confused as to where the two different projects are at. Are we still relocating the diesel plant? Is that not happening now? Sort of what's going on; could the Minister maybe speak a little bit more to that situation. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
This will go to ADM Brennan, please.
ADM Brennan.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, so we are still planning to move ahead with both projects but in 2021, I believe there was an assessment done to combine both projects. So to plan to relocate the diesel plant and combine it with a new LNG plant. So right now we have some money for the LNG, but we don't have any funding for the diesel. So we're basically looking for federal money to complete both projects at the same time. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So this seems to be something different than the last time we were sitting here talking about this project because at that point, it was just a one standalone supplementary LNG, and we were told that it would be going back to get a full amount of money for the LNG plant. When did this change to become a co-locate of the old diesel plant with the new LNG component. Thank you.
Thank you. ADM Brennan
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's my understanding that that decision was made in I have in my notes 2022. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair; it's been a long week. That's pretty broad, in 2022, and just makes me think that perhaps it was not communicated to us properly in the last sitting, what was actually going on with this project. I struggle to see why we are continuing to waffle or go back and forth on what's happening here given that, really, our increased flooding and climate change driven emergencies are likely going to mean that that diesel plant where it is now is no longer going to be useable. Can the Minister or the department speak to the fact of why a decision was made not to move to full LNG and remove the diesel component all together? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm going to go to ADM Brennan one more time and it certainly can yes, let's do that for now, please.
ADM Brennan
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. So essentially what happened was there was a risk assessment done at the existing site of the diesel plant, and it was decided that it had to be moved as well. So at that point in time a decision was made to combine both projects and move it off the island. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, so that does make sense to me with what we were talking about last time. However, then, I was not aware that the plan was to reuse the existing diesel plant in the new combination one. And if there is a relocation with the $3 million, is that still happening? So we are going to be repurposing old equipment or infrastructure from the old plant rather than going to new diesel equipment? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Madam Chair, I'll certainly take this back to ADM Brennan, but the information I have is that is actually part of the challenge right now, is NTPC is trying to still work through the relocation and get a proper cost estimate as to how that relocation takes place given that with a relocation you may or may not be able to reuse the equipment. So, again, happy to redirect that as well. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Great Slave.
Yeah, that would make sense. I guess my concern is what is our contingency plan should NTPC, in all of their infinite wisdom, struggle to find a solution here to what is going on and then we have all these supply chain challenges that are only continuing to get worse as we have disruptions to services through fires and other and flooding and other events? I'm very, very concerned that this is being left in NTPC's hands and that at some point, the diesel plant will fall into the river, or at least become unusable and unsafe, and there will be no LNG plant to replace it. So are we going to then pay for everybody to have solar panels in Fort Simpson; what's the contingency plan here? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I would suggest that asking about the contingency plans for GNWT's, and really the NWT's energy security, is probably a reasonable question for every community in the Northwest Territories. I don't know that there's anything particularly more or less urgent here. You know, the current plant does still have life. It is still functional in that regard. It is at least at the planning stage to move forward for a more secure long term and sustainable location. We, you know, again are taking that message to the federal government because any projects that we had planned, in this case interrupted by a flood, you know, now the cost of everything have gone up quite significantly. So, you know, the backup plan is to get this plan moving and to make some decisions so that it can be relocated in a way that makes sense to use the assets that are there if possible and, if not, to have an estimate that is current so that that can be brought back here to determine if that's where we want to go. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With all due respect, I wonder if the Minister's actually gone out and seen the roadway and looked at the amount of erosion that has occurred at that site in the last two years. And I think it's all pretty safe to say that it's not going to get any better. You know, I just have to reiterate I have no faith in the fact that this is a department that over four years has failed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in money to the point where the federal government has said they'll cut our funding off and we have to use pots that have already been promised to us but we get no new money promised because we can't spend what we've got. And then here I see that we're we've had money, we've known about this problem. I knew about this problem as a consultant in Fort Simpson when I worked there in 2012. So for us to now be sitting here waiting on NTPC to figure out what they're going to do with this falling down plant and can they salvage some of it because they have no financial stability, I have to wonder what the village of Fort Simpson is going to do. Yeah, I think that they're all going to find themselves with no power at some point in the next few years or a very piecemealedtogether project. And, really, this is a failure of this department to exercise and to get their mandates and their work done. This department hasn't moved for four years. And that's not all the pandemic. That is not all the fires. That is a lack of will and push to get things done and get the money spent that could have kept our economy going through COVID and other things. I have nothing else to say. Thank you, Madam Chair.
