Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, Mr. Chair, first, I guess I misunderstood. So the priority -- the primary criteria rating has been done here. It did get a score B -- B, A, A, and A which is for direct impacts, severity of impacts, and urgency mitigation. Sorry, I apologize. When the project was initially began and the funding was secured from the federal government to get to the regulatory proceedings, back then there was not this rigor. It is going through that process now. But it was just the idea of a comparison when we started, it wouldn't have had that because that wasn't being applied the way it is today. So I am sorry if I wasn't clear that it is going through that process now.
But in addition to that, so if we were to stop, to date we've incurred $4.8 million only to date, and it's really the next stage, and the project went sort of on a bit of a pause when the regional economic assessment was requested to see how we can best fit in the work that's happening on the one to the other. Obviously if we are to walk away from the 75/25, then the federal government would not be paying any of the 75 so we would be on the hook for whatever amounts have been incurred to date. Again, that's not a -- well, it's $4.8 million, Mr. Chair, so it is what it is but we would then be, you know, again, losing that opportunity with the 75/25. So, you know, other opportunities, what else can we do?
Mr. Chair, that's, again, pretty big question that I'm a bit hesitant to get into today sitting here on -- with the capital budget. How do we save the economy of the Northwest Territories is kind of the question and I, again, don't know that I'm in a position to try to answer that without running the clock, so I will stop. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Next on my list I have is the Member for Range Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as this is a very lively discussion around these infrastructure projects, can the Minister indicate if these, Taltson, Slave Geological Province Road, Mackenzie Valley Highway, if they're revenue generating projects. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, Taltson is contemplated to be revenue generating. Not necessarily in huge dollars but it depends. The issue is we are dependent or expecting that there would be industrial load added by having the Taltson construction. So, for instance, even right now with the overhaul that is expected to hopefully be fully absorbed, that excess energy would be fully absorbed by the Pine Point line. To do the expansion, it certainly links south and north and a significant number of communities. But to be revenue generating depends on there being at least another one, if not two, and hopefully three, new industrial projects that are added to it. There are a number of prospects that could line up well in their timing, whether it's lithium here in the North Slave, whether it was gold projects in the North Slave or otherwise, and that would make it revenue generating.
The Slave Geologic Province is also anticipated that if it were to get to a point of going forward, could also be revenue generating from a number of different aspects. One being as a toll road into a mine rich -- mining, mineral resource rich area and/or as an access point to the Grays Bay Port. So, again, those are pretty far out considerations. We're not at a point of doing a business case, but those would be the kinds of considerations.
As for the Mackenzie Valley Highway, Mr. Chair, right now that business case is a next major step that is to be had. I don't know that that's been necessarily billed as the priority being about revenue generation as opposed to about fundamental interconnectedness for the territory. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the Dempster Highway, of course the O and M costs for that are shared between the Yukon -- the Government of the Yukon and the Government of the Northwest Territories. Is it possible that the Slave Geological Province, which would link to Grays Bay cross interprovincial borders or interterritorial borders, could a similar agreement -- I mean, this is a hypothetical but I hope the Minister will indulge me, but given we've had success, we know what that relationship looks like, if a similar relationship were struck with Nunavut on the Slave Geological -- O and M for the Slave Geological Province. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I can say there's certainly some -- as I mentioned, some renewed interest from Nunavut now organized to have a bit of their own project company that's out to develop and become a proponent to potentially on the Grays Bay Port, and they have reached out to the GNWT to see where we're at on Slave Geologic Province. They're turning their mind to it. I'd actually point the Member also south of our border, and Alberta is also showed a lot of interest. I think they are seeing perhaps less fossil fuel dependent future for themselves as well and are looking at where they can find new opportunities, and they are also showing a lot of interest. So this may be a corridor that has inputs from other jurisdictions. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, that is very positive. And I know most of northern Alberta is on very heavy fossil fuels so creating a pressure valve for them would probably be in their interest. Also the Grays Bay Port project could be a new link for sealift into the Northwest Territories. Is that something the Minister has looked at as well, to lower cost of living in the Northwest Territories by providing sealift from, say, the port of Montreal rather than trucking everything in with heavy trucks? Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, there was a lot of nodding at this table when the question was posed. So as far as being cognizant of the possibility that this could create another way in which to bring assets and supplies in, you know, yes, the answer is yes. As far as it -- my understanding, there was a fairly old dated business case for the Slave Geological Province that is in rather dire need of update. We're not, again, at that stage yet. But that -- yes, again, the short answer is that definitely creates the potential for a corridor. I mean, you know, as I said earlier, really, if projects don't move forward to the place where they are studied and ready -- I'm cognizant these are expensive things to move forward on but if you don't have the information, you don't have the knowledge, you haven't done the studies, you haven't done your environmental assessment, you cannot make a construction decision, and you cannot advance the project. And that's, really, what these -- that's the stage that these ones are still at. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the Minister spoke of, you know, a significant number of jobs, probably hundreds, thousands potentially, with all three of these projects, millions of dollars in opportunity, perhaps billions if it leads to an explosion of exploration activities and development in a mineral rich area that would be opened up through Slave Geological Province, for example. We know the Mackenzie Valley Highway is in -- or is a critical need for the territory with the effects of climate change harming marine resupply up the Mackenzie Valley -- or the Mackenzie River. And, of course, Taltson is the key to the government's clean energy future. So it seems to me that all the three projects here are almost nation building projects that have -- that can, you know, in terms of bang-for-your-buck investments, these are very well thought out. These have had a lot of time and attention by very smart people who work for our government and have been shepherding these over years, by very capable Ministers as well, and I see no reason why we should be picking and choosing winners and losers here. There isn't a limited cap of political capital you can take to the well in Ottawa. If you have a willing partner in the federal government, I'm sure we could get a lot of these things funded, especially if they're northern minded and want to do some nation building. I can only think if the Mackenzie Valley pipeline had gone a different way, the kind of economic activity that could have been opened up in the Northwest Territories, the kind of major infrastructure that would have come in as well, would have been transformative. We might not be in a have-not region of the country with that -- with something that opened up the region and resource development as well and enriched everyone down that transportation corridor. And when I think of something like the Slave Geological Province, that's what I think it could be. I think of the benefits that could go to the Akaitcho, to the Tlicho, to Nunavut groups, to people in the Northwest Territories generally. And if there's opportunities for sealift, if there's opportunities for marine supply, that's -- that could be a game changer too. You know, these are creative solutions to the infrastructure deficit we have. I know the Minister's very passionate about this, and I just wanted to indicate I very much lend my support to these projects. And it is a bit disappointing that, you know, we have -- oftentimes we are very critical, and Members of this committee are for critical of these projects, when I think we should be embracing them fully and finding ways to make them happen instead of, again, picking winners and losers. So the Minister doesn't have to comment, but I think it's important that we continue to prioritize these projects as a government and we get them done as soon as possible because we don't want to be looking back 60 years later at what could have been, at another Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Thank you.
Okay, thank you, the Member from Range Lake. Is there any other Members that want to add to the discussion on this item? Seeing no hands, I'm going to continue on.
Department of Infrastructure, programs and services, infrastructure investment, 19 million -- sorry? Sorry, colleagues.
Department of Infrastructure, energy and strategic initiatives, infrastructure investment, $71,500,000. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Members, because we got translation here, we'll take a short recess.
--- BRIEF RECESS
Thank you. I'll call the meeting back to order, committee. Thank you, Members. We're going on to continue on. Please turn on to page 60, programs and services, with information items on page 61. Are there any questions?
Department of Infrastructure, programs and services, infrastructure investment, $19,440,000. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Members, please return now to the Department of Infrastructure summary found on page 53. The Department of Infrastructure, 2025-2026 Capital Estimates, $184,875,000. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Inuvik Boot Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I move this committee defer further consideration of the capital estimates for the Department of Infrastructure at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Consider next is all -- the motion is carried. Consideration of the Department of Infrastructure, 2025-2026 Capital Estimates, total department is deferred.
---Carried
Thank you, committee. And thank you, Minister. Sergeant-at-arms, please escort the witness from the chambers.
Committee, we have agreed to consider Tabled Document 193-20(1), Capital Estimates 2025-2026, Department of Environment and Climate Change. Does the Minister of Environment and Climate Change wish to bring witnesses into the chamber? Minister.
Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Thank you. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Sergeant-at-arms, please escort the witness into the chamber. Would the Minister please introduce the witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On my right, I have Dr. Erin Kelly, deputy minister. And on my left I have Jessica St. Arnaud, director of finance.
Thank you. Committee has agreed to forego general comments. Is the committee agreed to proceed to the details contained in the tabled documents? Committee, agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you. Committee, the Department of Environment and Climate Change begins on page 23. We will defer the department totals and review the estimates by activity summary, beginning at page 25 with environment and management monitoring and climate change, with information items on page 26. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, I'm moving on.
Department of Environment and Climate Change, environmental management, monitoring, and climate change, infrastructure investments, $249,000. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Next we have is regional operation on page 27, information item on page 28. Are there any questions? I'm going to go to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm going to ask a question about a random one of these assets and kind of dive deeper than just one singular asset, but let's just talk about the boat, the replacement boat for field work in Inuvik. Can I please get a substantiation for that item? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Order. Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This specific item is part of a fleet of equipment that the department uses to deliver the programs for the department across the Beaufort Delta region. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Great Slave.
Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. So in some of my comments to the Minister of Finance yesterday, I know in our substantiations we talk about different ways that we make decision makings -- decision-making, pardon me, around the various metrics and choices that we make for selecting these items and considerations that we make about these items. There has been great conversation in previous Assemblies around the climate change considerations of these items. And so not to pick on the boat, not to make my colleague from Inuvik Boot Lake angry, it was just picked at random, I'm just curious as to why in climate change considerations for boats and trucks and other assets that run on fossil fuels the climate change considerations are none? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for the question. I think that some of the challenges, especially in the Northwest Territories and certainly based on location, is having adequate infrastructure based on the resources that are available within that area. So in the Beaufort Delta, for example, the boats that are used to deliver the programming there need to be of a certain size and ability to deliver the programs to ensure that our staff are safe as they're doing that work. And there's not really anything currently on the market that would be able to enhance the goals in the way of not using fossil fuel. So currently, a majority of our large patrol boats are all four cycles which is certainly a move forward in the way of more environmentally friendly than perhaps in the previous years when it used to be a two-ycle engine. These are far more fuel efficient, much more economical, and certainly do provide some benefits to the climate. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And arguably, when we talk about all of our assets that put out greenhouse gases, be they vehicles or buildings or whatever the case may be, I guess how one boat in Inuvik is not going to break the GHG bank, so to speak, but to see that there's no -- no impact of just any asset, I don't know if I agree with that. Maybe the Minister could speak to that. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, I -- I mean there certainly is an impact in a contribution to the greenhouse gas total from all of this infrastructure that's on our landscape; however, I mean, like I said earlier, you know, the options of to go to other technologies are somewhat limited and, yes, much of the infrastructure that is on the capital plan is replacing existing infrastructure so it's not additions to the fleet but part of the replacement cycle. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Great Slave.
