Thank you, Minister. Back to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Excuse me, I'm having a little bit of a frog in my throat. It says here replacement of capital server network and storage infrastructure. In that substantiation, does the decision -- does the decision-making process that Cabinet commits to for many of its decision-making instruments apply? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the Member from Great Slave. Minister Wawzonek.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I mean, obviously every element of the budget does at some point come through the department of -- well, sorry, not the department of FMB but through the FMB. But this is an item that is a standing -- I guess a standing element sort of its own pot. It doesn't necessarily, quite frankly -- I mean, what we're dealing with is -- just to put some numbers to it, 7,000 different devices for all staff which, you know, 6,000 plus public servants, offices across 33 communities, some of which are on fibre, some of which are still on microwave, so an allocation of $1.95 million does -- is meant to support all of that. It's a standing item. The individual decisions are -- which computer or which office gets a new system don't necessarily come to us, but ensuring that there's a pot there available for the folks to do those operational decisions, that part is. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Wawzonek. The Member of Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so I know that in the last Assembly there was a great deal of interest from the Members around how we make decisions and specifically how Cabinet makes decisions on various pieces of information before them, be it decision instruments, be it financial decisions. And so part of that conversation was climate change consideration so I'm just asking I guess, do climate change considerations occur in the substantiations of these projects? Thank you.
Thank you to the Member of Great Slave. Minister Wawzonek.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So climate change considerations are part of the substantiation sheets. And -- yes, I mean, in this case with respect to the $1.9 million allotted, or roughly thereabouts allotted to maintain our basic infrastructure, it's -- this was not a consideration or a factor that, you know, went strongly really one way or the other. There was not a lot considered in this particular element. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Wawzonek. The Member of Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So something that I've been thinking about, and noticing a lot lately, is the conversation around computer servers, and specifically AI search engine servers, that sort of the thing and the like, contributing greatly to greenhouse gas emissions and water usage. So I recognize that these servers might not even exist necessarily in the territory. If they do, fine. If they are small scale, also fine. But I would hazard to guess that because of the way that the climate change considerations work, if these servers aref indeed out of the territory we can say then, no, they don't impact climate change in the territory but, you know, everything's interconnected. If the Minister has any comments on that, that would be great. Thank you.
Thank you to the Member of Great Slave. Minister Wawzonek, do you have any comments?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I actually have to say I was wondering if the question would be more around the waste that's created by electronic devices, but -- so, again, I can say, look, I appreciate that, bringing attention to this particular item, you know, maybe when we go back and we look a little more carefully, if there's some element that we still want to consider when we are putting forward the substantiation but, you know, again, the essential nature of having this basic equipment to run the government I don't think is lost but justa making sure we are turning our minds to the impacts. We don't -- they aren't right now using the kind of, you know, AI servers that are typical of having extremely high energy needs and very high emissions but as the Member said, there is a lot of interconnectedness when we rely on companies that have huge footprints. So, again, keeping those considerations in mind is appreciated, and we'll make sure to make note of it. Thanks.
Thank you, Minister Wawzonek. Next on the list we have the Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I have, well, first a question about the courts modernization project. It looks like the budget for that project has more than doubled since it was first proposed. Like, this is a three-year project and -- well, I guess the first question is the current estimate of the budget over the three years, do we have any assurance that that's going to be the final cost, or do we expect that costs might still sort of increase further beyond what the estimated budget is now? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the Member from Yellowknife North. Minister Wawzonek.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This project has seen an increase to its original budget, and it's likely to see some further increase. Mr. Chair, I don't get to do opening comments in terms of the topical areas we hit but I will say with respect to the IT infrastructure, over the last few years there's been numerous occasions where we've seen an early stage budget that winds up being significantly off, and that is something that the department, with the chief information officer, is trying to get a better handle on. Understanding the nature and the needs of the project more at the front end allows us to understand what the actual infrastructure -- technological infrastructure requirements are better so that we can have a more accurate budget which has been a way of doing these kinds of projects, precisely like this one, that we are going to see a few budgets get adjusted as a result of that but hopefully as that process unfolds and becomes more engrained, we will see more accurate budgets earlier on. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Wawzonek. To the Member of Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm wondering if this is the type of project that would have been improved by the project that's listed second, the information management and technology planning study's initiative. It seems like that initiative is trying to prevent situations like this from taking place but maybe the Minister can comment on whether this is a good example of what might be prevented by that planning study's project. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the Member of Yellowknife North. Minister Wawzonek.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is precisely what I was speaking to. But if I may, I might suggest having the chief information officer just speak to that a little bit further. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Wawzonek. Mr. Hffernan.
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing that we're trying to address with the $1 million in preplanning or the planning studies. Oftentimes, when -- in the past, when a project was approved, we only had a high level idea of what the project is. We didn't have detailed requirements. And so this is all intended to give you a better upfront estimate. Similar to how you would do it in the building of a building or a road, you do sort of preplanning, geotechnical design, that sort of thing. This is very similar. But in the IT world, it allows us to get to a greater degree of certainty on what a project scope is going to be, what the budget is going to be, and then hopefully avoid these situations where we end up with a two-year project that turns into a five-year project that doubles its budget and takes forever to complete, so.
Thank you, Mr. Heffernan. To you there, Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So that's good news. I'm also wondering if in a project like this where, like it's multi-year and then year by year either we realize we need to increase the scope, like the replacement of driver's licensing system, my understanding was that it initially was supposed to be improvements and then later on decided well, we better replace the whole system. So if a project is sort of year after year, either the cost turned out to be way greater or the scope is increasing, to what extent do we have off ramps for a project like this where there might be an option to just like stop and not do any more? Like, is it sort of decided that as soon as a project is started that we have to follow it to its conclusion and just keep spending sort of any amount of money to just finish the thing, or what kinds of consideration goes into at what point do we find an off ramp and just say it's good enough or -- I mean, using this specific project as an example, but maybe there's others too. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the Member Yellowknife North. Minister Wawzonek.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One consideration with -- well, I guess two considerations with off ramps initially. The first one that I was going to suggest is that we not put ourselves into a situation where the cost of coming off on the off ramp actually winds up being just kicking a cost down the line and being greater later. Again, not dissimilar to actual physical infrastructure that you can delay a renovation, you can delay a fix, but you may wind up with a bigger problem down the line. We do, you know, obviously -- and certainly I'm trying to put it back into this context, if it's clear that the value can't be delivered within the scope of the project that it is, you certainly -- and we have seen projects in the IT space in the last few years that have had to come to a stop and not advance because the initial estimate is just too low, and it can't move forward. In other cases, you can take it and limit the scope and do just part of what you want to do. You can try to create a system that will allow you to build onto it later, and then you can also then, you know, try to ensure that the technology that you're using or the software that you're using is at least modern, can at least be, you know, again triaging what the situation is. So there's definitely these opportunities to either stop a project, delay a project, or rescope it, depending on just how big the problem is or how much risk there is involved. That's probably about the best I could do without a more specific example. But, again, I appreciate the question.
Thank you, Minister Wawzonek. The Member from Yellowknife North.
That's fine, Mr. Chair. That's all my questions on this. Thanks.
Thank you to the Member from Yellowknife North. Any further questions from committee? Seeing none.
The Department of Finance, Office of the Chief Information Officer, infrastructure investments, $5,068,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, Members. Please return to the Department of Finance summary found on page 33.
Department of Finance, 2025-2026 Capital Estimates, $5,068,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
The Member for Inuvik Boot Lake.
I move that the committee defer further consideration of the capital estimates for the Department of Finance at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the Inuvik Boot Lake Member. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Consideration of the Department of Finance 2025-2026 Capital Estimates, total department is deferred.
---Carried
Thank you, committee. And thank you to the Minister. Sergeant-at-arms, please escort the witnesses from the chamber.
Committee, you have agreed to consider Tabled Document 193-20(1), Capital Estimates 2025-2026, Department of Justice. Does the Minister of Justice wish to bring in witnesses to the chamber?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I do. Thank you.
Does committee agree? Thank you. Sergeant-at-arms, please escort the witnesses into the chamber. Would the Minister please introduce the witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With me on my left is Charlene Doolittle, the deputy minister of the Department of Justice. And on my right is James Bancroft, the director of corporate services with the Department of Justice. Thank you.
Thank you. The committee has agreed to forego general comments. Is the committee agreed to proceed to the details contained in the table document?
Agreed.
Committee, the Department of Justice begins on page 62. We will defer the department totals and review the estimates by activity summary, beginning on page 63. Are there any questions? Okay, seeing none.
The Department of Justice, corrections, infrastructure investments, $880,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Next we will -- we have court services on page 65 with the information item on 66. Are there any questions? We have the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I note that the project here listed is a washroom accessibility upgrade for the Yellowknife courthouse. Could the Minister, please, provide a substantiation for this project. Thank you.
Thanks to the Member from Great Slave. Minister of Justice.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Yellowknife courthouse was built in 1977 and 1978, and the existing washrooms on floors 2 to 6 are original to the building. These washrooms have a 90-degree enclosed vestibule entry with doors on each side of the vestibule. Obviously, this is not an accessible washroom, and upgrades are required to ensure that all residents are able to use these facilities. Thank you.
Thank you to the Minister of Justice. The Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the Minister for that. And it's always good to hear that we are increasing accessibility to our public-facing offices. I'm curious, and I apologize if it's not the right Minister that I should be asking but as it is his project I will ask him. The way that we weigh capital projects and how we choose certain buildings for upgrades, I understand it's a bit of a sliding scale of this is falling apart or this is very, very important. Could the Minister speak as to why this upgrade is occurring over maybe other buildings in the GNWT? Thank you.
Thank you to the Member Great Slave. Minister of Justice.
