Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, there is, indeed, an overall asset management plan and capital project plan for NTPC and, you know, some of that involves studies that are being done around what alternatives and changes could move forward, what communities might see, you know, advancement of hydro projects and, in some cases, those studies can be funded elsewhere, or in other cases can be delayed, and in other cases, again, some of the future improvements projects can be pushed back or have planning done in advance hopefully to produce better estimates, although, again, in this case, it was -- this estimate of $40 million, I just want to note was from back in 2017. So to say we went from an estimate in 2017 to a final cost in 2024 that is significantly different, ideally we're in a situation going forward and, again, including with some of those that are put on hold, that that gives us some time to have a better estimate going in. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess what I'm trying to get at here is if we set out ahead of time that certain equipment or infrastructure needs upgrading or replacing or maintenance or repair at certain times, it's generally based on our expected costs of what would happen if we didn't do those upgrades or maintenance or repairs, you know, things might start to break down or they don't work efficiently, or. Do we expect any increase costs in repair, maintenance, O and M, from delaying upgrades that NTPC has previously identified that it requires? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, not necessarily. So there certainly are, you know, standard periods of time on any piece of infrastructure or equipment that would suggest, you know, an ideal window within which you would replace or repair or renovate and, you know, any sort of deferred maintenance across the entire government spectrum has those built in. But by not doing it, you may be increasing the risk of a future -- increasing the risk that the equipment or the asset can become unused or less useable or less efficient, but that doesn't necessarily guarantee that it is in that situation. So obviously when the decisions are being made as to exactly what projects or what planning studies or what research to delay or should be delayed or just may frankly be delayed, that would be the ones that we would want to take money out of, whether it's, again, any infrastructure or situation would be the same, NTPC being no different than that. There's always a balance that's every year done around -- out of the pool of funding available for any given year for maintenance, what areas have the greatest risk and need and those ones get priorities, and maybe others that are ready to go in terms of timing that just have to be delayed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's all my questions for this one.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When is the cost construction report for the Inuvik Wind Project due to be released? Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Sorry, Mr. Chair. The costs for construction?
(audio)
Okay; I'll go to the Minister.
Sorry, Mr. Chair. I don't have great ears in this room. So that's the post-construction report, and that is going to be part of the submission that is made for the 2024-2025 GRA that the Public Utilities Board has requested. I believe that is due by the end of December.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you. And my apologies to the Minister. I think I heard costs, and it's post, which makes much more sense. Is there any way that that report just around the Inuvik Wind Project can be released ahead of the GRA application and tabled in the House? Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know. It may have to go to the Public Utilities Board. So it is a requirement of the Public Utilities Board process. So I'll have to just see what the requirements of that process are and whether or not we're able to split off the post-construction report separately and in advance, and if so, I would have no trouble tabling. But, again, I'll just have to double check with that process. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you. Would the Minister -- would there be any issues if -- no, never mind. Okay, I look forward to that. Because I think there is interest at tackling this from a value for money perspective and from an independent body that is not the power corp looking into its own costs. So I know that that's a discussion that we've had as Members, and if there's any way to get this information out there, then we can take that report and do something with it, whether it's a review by standing committee or bringing in some sort of independent expertise to look at it. But I know there is a lot of interest in this, so can the Minister commit to getting us that information in some form so we can take a look at it with our own lens? Thank you.
Thank you, I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, the Public Utilities Board is an independent body, so it is to them that we would be submitting this for their review by technical experts who are independent from NTPC. In addition to which, Mr. Chair, the NTPC is also audited by the Office of the Auditor General and so, again, any expenses incurred and costs incurred, etcetera, will go through that process as well. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.
Yes, thank you. And, I mean, an audit is -- I think we're looking for more of a performance audit rather than just a financial audit. I think the accounting is clear. It's more the performance of the project. So I guess we'll wait, but I know that this is not anywhere near to being a closed issue should -- you know, like, this is an extraordinary amount of money for an infrastructure project that is important but, notably, is not actually lowering the cost of living for anyone in the Northwest Territories. So for this much money to go into a project that is having an impact on greenhouse gas emissions, which is good, but not doing much more than that, I think we really do need to take a look at this because is this best value for money, and I'm not convinced at this point. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from the Sahtu.
Is there any further questions? No, okay. We'll continue on.
Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2024-2025; Department of Infrastructure, operations expenditures, energy and strategic initiatives, not previously authorized, $36 million. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2024-2025; Department of Infrastructure, operations expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $36 million. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Committee, please turn to page 7. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2024-2025; Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, community operations, not previously authorized, $51,460,000. Is there any questions?
Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2024-2025; Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, community operations, not previously authorized, $51,460,000. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2024-2025; Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $51,460,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Committee, please turn to page 8. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2024-2025, Department of Education, Culture and Employment, capital investment expenditures, junior kindergarten to grade 12 school services, not previously authorized, $16,776,000. Are there any questions? I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I absolutely agree that we need to make sure that there is appropriate space for kids to go to school in Tuktoyaktuk and Coville Lake and all the other places. Just to clarify, though, is this $2.325 million definitely going to get those modular classrooms up to Tuk and get them set up and going? Do we have confirmation that that is what it will take, and we will be able to do that with that amount of money? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Mr. Chair, sadly, the answer to that is no. This is one particular item that was fairly near and dear to my heart and that I was watching very closely so that these portables would be the first ones on the barge that was due to head north. Obviously with no barges heading north, there are no portables heading north. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife North.
So I guess my question is if we approve $2.325 million at this time, is that money just going to go towards continued efforts of any kind, and we might see another supplementary estimate or appropriation come our way in the future? I'm just unclear why we're being asked now for $2.325 million and what we expect to accomplish with that money now that we have encountered these kinds of challenges with the barge?
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, this is a matter of timing of why it comes before the House. So the modular units were in Yellowknife and were due to be dismantled and then find their new home. And so that work was already underway, and so part of the costs here actually have already been incurred. And then they were to be moved -- then meanwhile, also there was site preparation underway up in Tuktoyaktuk to receive the modulars when they arrived there. And a fair bit of the cost actually was related to demobilizing and deconstructing and then preparing the site. The transportation costs was only around $120,000 of the total cost that's involved. So now all that said, obviously, that portion and any further building in Tuk is being delayed pending what happens in terms if we can find some other option within the parameters of the funding that is being proposed here. At the moment, I don't have another option to propose, but again, with those works already well underway when this came forward, we are still bringing it to Assembly for this costing and, again, there's -- you know, I know the Minister for ECE and Minister of Infrastructure are both keen to see that some solution can be found. I just at the moment don't have one. But, really, the site preparation, again, was already underway and was a large part of the cost. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I definitely appreciate the challenges and the dilemma that we're in. I'm just concerned that we're approving money for something that we might not be able to actually accomplish.
On the second one, in term of the acquisition of portables for Colville Lake, do we have a better news story on that one? Do we expect that that will actually be accomplished with the $2.824 million?
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, so, again, this is a situation where there's a number of breakdowns of things. Site preparation is really about half, if not more than half, of the cost. And so the short answer should be yes, because these ones are coming up on the winter road, and so we are still anticipating that that will be ready to roll for 2025. And site preparation, as I note, that is a significant portion of the rest of that cost, so probably over $2 million or $2.4 million roughly. Obviously, we'll wait and see what the financial bill is on that. I don't know that I have a final in front of me but that is a fairly specific estimate. Costs on the winter road, then are another part of it. Some support to the community to ensure that it's their members of their community that are building and participating in the construction. But, yes, so, again, assuming everything is ready to roll as scheduled, then we are expecting this will come up on the winter road and will be good to go. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, that's good news at least. I expect we'll just continue to be having conversations about the challenges with classroom space in Tuk and hope that we come to a resolution as soon as we can. Thank you
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from the Sahtu.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the Minister for providing some of the information in her previous statement which answers my question about the Colville Lake school. And I was looking at the original tendered price and now some more money going towards that, and it's going towards the site preparations, is my understanding. So that explains over and above why the additional funds are being requested. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Mr. Chair, thank you. And, yes, to be clear, the single biggest difference is on this item, and why it is back before the Assembly for supplementary appropriation, is, indeed, the side preparation, contract and tender, which was significantly higher than originally estimated, that as well as the costs of having a crane there to place units, again, in the community, and last, there are, again, some ongoing quality controls elements to the site preparation. So, really, it is all related to ensuring that the community of Colville Lake is ready to receive those units when they arrive. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go back to the Member from the Sahtu.
