Okay, thanks. I'm interested in seeing the Stantec report. Can the Minister provide that to me even if it needs to be confidential, that's fine. But I'd like to see it myself. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't think there's any limitations to doing so under cover of confidentiality subject to being corrected. But assuming that that's fine.
Member for Frame Lake.
Okay. No, that's fine. Look, I understand the value of the area. It is important. It's used recreationally now. I want to see it developed. I just want to make sure that it can be done safely and that we're in doing this project, we're not going to expose people or workers to stuff that they shouldn't be exposed to. So that's why I'm asking these questions, and I'm just wondering whether the company has any residual responsibility because I think it's adjacent or a part of their original operations over a number of years. So that's why I'm asking these questions, and these are the kinds of questions our government needs to somebody's singing Happy Birthday, I love it.
But these are the kinds of questions our government needs to ask and be sure of before they accept sites or even transfer sites back within and between departments and getting leased lands back from companies or individuals. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I can say we have departments of ITI, infrastructure, lands have all been involved, and the Stantec professional engineers out of Vancouver who do marine assessments are the ones that were involved. So I am hopeful that the information we get to the Member will allay his concerns. Thank you.
Thank you. Any further questions? Member for Frame Lake.
No, thanks, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for that. And, of course, since we've got only about a week left if I could get it before then, that would be helpful. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any further questions under the economic diversification and business support? Member for sorry, Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi, Madam Chair. Yeah, this dock rehabilitation really caught my eye here. I wasn't aware that GNWT did this type of work or had funding to rehabilitate docks because I imagine there's many docks up and down the Mackenzie River, and specifically the dock at Fort Providence is in need of major repairs, and also the boat launch too is just a single little launch, you know, considering the amount of usage that area has, especially with lots of tourism in our community. They're launching out of every little nook and cranny that they could get at which are not recognized boat launch but the one in the community. What's the process to have to get dock repairs and have boat ramps built? Mahsi.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I would also be very keen to see more small craft harbours and accessibility to the waters all around the Northwest Territories, not the least of which would be around the Mackenzie and in Fort Providence and throughout the area. A lot of this does require the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I can see over the last couple of years we had hoped to have them more engaged and more involved in determining additional sites and locations for small craft harbours, but first there were some delays because they couldn't travel here during COVID and then the last couple of summer seasons were not necessarily the smoothest, if I may. So I mean, that process of getting access and changing accessibility to the waters really does involve a conversation with them. I can say that the DFO does have an office now in the Northwest Territories, which hopefully will make the process of engaging with them a little bit smoother. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi, Madam Chair, and mahsi to the Minister for that. I'm just wondering why you know, if our community I was asking for a process of how we could get that in. Now you only mentioned one part of it there, getting DFO involved. What's DFO's involvement in anything like this? Mahsi.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. DFO, or the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the jurisdiction over waterways, so they control the access and control the that parcel of not land, but that area is under their authority and administration. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Deh Cho.
what triggers DFO involvement; how do we get that process going? That was my initial question was what's what is the whole process to get from point A to point B in this application process or whatever to get infrastructure in place? Mahsi.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So I mean, there are two parts to it I suppose. Firstly, if there's an interest in having DFO involved, I mean, the Department of ITI can be a liaison point where whether under tourism, whether under fisheries, potentially Department of Municipal and Community Affairs I imagine could certainly go and advocate to our counterparts to say, look, we would like your officials and staff to come and come to our region and look at what prospects there might be, do their own internal assessments and government processes that exist within the federal government. We would not be in a position to build things in a waterway without the Department of Fisheries and Oceans approving that. You've probably heard the Minister of Infrastructure talking about the harbour restoration happening outside of Hay River. It required approval from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for them to be able to go and do that even though it's the coast guard are the ones that needs it. So it's really getting them to be taking an interest. Again, I can say they it has been a bit of a challenge to get them to take an interest in putting some additional collection points for fisheries. Notwithstanding that we have all this potential in the North for a strong fishery, it's been very challenging to get their attention on this issue and to get them to come up and identify potential sites. And then we go through our capital planning process so that we could build the docks or build a marina or build a site. But we're not to get through our planning process, we would certainly not want to not go too far down that path if the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is only going to say, no, you cannot have access to that waterway. So, you know, they give us the okay, then we can build whatever it is on the land piece to access it but we really need them involved to identify an appropriate site in the water, and then we can build on the land. I don't know if that makes a bit more sense. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi. So to trigger that whole process, the community would have to request through ITI for the boat and the ramp or the dock and the ramps?
I'm just going to remind Members to end your question with Madam Chair just so that we can make sure that the sound and the mics go on in the right order. Minister of Finance.
Madam Chair, that is definitely one path. I think I'm starting to realize here where this is going. Yes, look, I think it would be wonderful news to have, again as I said, more access to the waterways, whether for tourism, for the sake of the communities, or for fisheries. So one way is for the community to reach out to ITI to be partners in that and to then take the interest to the DFO to say, look, get your officials out to the community of Fort Providence. There's an interest locally. I know there's an interest in the fishery locally there. What can be done to have better access. And if they can identify a site, ITI could then start to go through the capital planning process that brings a project to this House to try to request funding through this the current process we're in to build the associated facility on land. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi, Madam Chair. Also, does it take any engineering firm? Because you mentioned Stantec was involved in the Yellowknife one. Would that include an engineering firm to look at it also? Mahsi, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, it doesn't I mean, not necessarily, but maybe. I guess it depends. In this case of the Robertson dock, because they were rehabilitating an existing structure, the Stantec folks were involved to determine whether that structure could be rehabilitated or had to be replaced and what the parameters of that would be. But if it's you know, again, if we're building anew, then that is a new building process. If you're rehabilitating, that's a different process. Yes, not necessarily is probably the best I can give, unfortunately. Thanks.
Thank you. Member for Deh Cho.
Back to that Robertson dock rehabilitation, did somebody have to apply for it? Like, the City of Yellowknife? Or was it just an engineering firm that said, hey, here's a dock, rehabilitate? Mahsi.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. No. Madam Chair, this piece of infrastructure that is owned by the Government of the Northwest Territories is dilapidated. It is dangerous. People are going there and using it despite signage that we put up last year. And this has a risk to life. So that's one of the first risk categories when we do an analysis for the capital plan and when we're building the capital plan is to determine if there is a risk to human activity. This one fell in that category. And that's where it then advances through the peer review and ADM review process of a capital planning, and then ultimately comes here. So that's how the Robertson dock advanced. Other initiatives, such as something in Fort Providence could potentially proceed through a very different process if it's a new build for different purposes. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi, Madam Chair. So can you send an official to Fort Providence to have a look at that dock? And you'll find that it's in dire need of repair. Mahsi, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am certain that the South Slave Region would be happy to send somebody, and I know ITI's listening now. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi cho.
Are there any further questions to the ITI economic diversification business support? Seeing none.
Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment, economic diversification and business support, infrastructure investments, $750,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Members, please now turn to page 50. Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment, minerals and petroleum resources. Questions?
Industry, Tourism and Investment, mineral and petroleum resources, infrastructure investments, $700,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Industry, Tourism and Investment, tourism and parks, infrastructure investments, $2,978,000. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I can't let the last sitting go by and not ask about outhouses. So I know that this could also follow under the infrastructure area too around highways. But I note that there are a lot of parks work that are along the highway south, and it was really highlighted during the evacuation the facilities are woefully lacking down the highway and such. And so I note that there is one outhouse construction being planned here for Fred Henne Territorial Park. But I'm wondering has anything happened with the evacuation that has made the Minister feel that perhaps we do need to have more park outhouses and washrooms along our highway, or only road out. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. If the issue is around an evacuation route, that probably does not fall within ITI. Certainly during the evacuation, infrastructure did take the lead in terms of providing some additional porta potties along the route and ensuring that there was some additional cleaning, as did ITI, to ensure that for the parks that are there in the parks along the way, that the outhouses that are there that they were receiving additional cleaning. I am I have received both side of this council in that I certainly did receive some complaints, but I also had other people that I was checking in with along the way to see, and some were saying that facilities were fine, and then of course I know that others perhaps get there at a different period of time. So the long answer, Madam Chair, if it's an evacuation situation, infrastructure was the lead on that, yes. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I guess it's just one of these areas where I don't see it like as being kind of one department or the other. Given that most of the parks do come off of the main transportation routes or evacuation routes, it makes sense that we would be looking to double up and put that kind of infrastructure in those locations.
I'm not sure if this is where it would fall under, but I know that over time in the chair, your own region, there's been questions around the pullouts and such along the InuvikTuk Highway and whether or not there was going to be any sort of facilities or areas put in there. I know we went out to RFP a few years ago for that. Could the Minister give us an update on whether I don't think I see anything here that falls into that. So will that be in the next year's plan, or where is that at? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
