Minister of Infrastructure.

[Microphone turned off] ...have the numbers on what's happening for this next period of time with the funding that we already received from the federal government and the money that we had committed, and we discussed that as part of the mains in the budget discussion. We have our funding at the moment for the work we are carrying forward. I can provide you with those actual numbers if you like. I do think we have provided them in the past. I just do not have them right in front of me right now.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My concern and the reason I am asking this is because all three of these projects are very expensive and projects we don't necessarily have the funding for in the length of this government. The reason I am asking is because I would like to know what our investment is going to be in the study of three highly expensive infrastructure projects that we aren't even sure we can afford to do at this point in time. Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Thank you, and I do take note, and it's actually a really good observation and a valid observation. When we all sat down as 19 Members before we elected Cabinet and the Executive, we made these priorities without all of the information that we should have gotten at the time. I think all Members would agree to that.

We also made a commitment as 19 Members that we would review the mandate, not the Ministers, the mandate, when that process comes about because we don't have enough money. We don't have enough money to deal with all these three infrastructure projects. We don't have enough money to meet all of these 19 priorities and all of these mandates. There is going to have to be discussion coming forward about whether we actually bring down our priorities, what do we focus our efforts on. I am hoping that all MLAs will take part in that exercise as we move forward. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Premier. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you.

Member for Hay River South.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess, looking at those major projects, if you look at this government, of course we do not have the money to take these on on our own, but we have got to look beyond that, though. Taltson hydro, for instance, that is close to Hay River, so I have interest in that. There is an opportunity to partner with Aboriginal or Indigenous groups and try to do something. I would hope that this government would reach out and take the first step to start talking about that, because there are jobs, there is some ownership, there is Indigenous ownership, and hopefully it's federal money because we need federal dollars to do these projects. Otherwise, all we are going to do is go through four years, three-and-a-half years, of nickel-and-diming small, little projects.

I think it's important that we stop saying that we can't do this and we can't do that. We can do them. We have just got to find ways to do it. We have got to realize that the federal government has a responsibility, as well, and they have a lot deeper projects. Some of these projects may not make a big dent in their pockets like it would ours, so I think that we have to be more positive. We have to actually look at these things realistically. I just don't want us to say, "No, we can't do it." I see the potential for that. I see the potential for the highway down the Mackenzie. It opens it up to the people to hopefully lower the cost of living. It opens up to petroleum exploration if that ever comes back, to mining. It just does so much. Of course, we are not going to do it ourselves. We need the federal government, but let's make that pitch to them and get after them. They need something, as well. They need something to showcase, just like we need something, so there is an opportunity to do that.

At the end of the day, it's about jobs. It's about kind of opening up the North. For the next three-and-a-half years, that is what I am going to harp on, is the economy, business, and making it easier for northern contractors, northern businesses, northern residents to have jobs and stay here. Just like Mr. Lafferty had made comments earlier today about southern firms coming in, well, in Hay River, we have got a bridge going up. If a southern firm comes back, they bring all their equipment. They weren't paying the contractor. The contractor had to send them a letter and say, "If you are not going to pay this invoice, do you want us to send it to the GNWT?" And then an hour later, yes, the invoices are getter processed.

Those are the type of things we have got to do, and that is what we are up against, but we need to support those businesses. We have got to look at just not saying we can't do it, because we can do it. We just need somebody with deeper pockets to help us. We can look after the smaller ones. We can look after creating the jobs in the communities. That is easy enough. We have housing that we have some major projects. There are lots of jobs there. We have the fish plant. We have all kinds of things that we could be doing that will create a lot of jobs, so I think we have just got to be a little more positive. If Diane were here, she would probably say yes, so thank you.

Madam Premier.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Member for Hay River South.

No, it wasn't a question, just comments.

All right, so I will move to the Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My concern with this area is that the prior government committed millions of dollars in shared funding to these three projects, which I really don't believe can be developed and completed simultaneously. We have a lot of money tied up in these three projects, in the start-up for them, in things like environmental assessment and design, where we know that all three projects can't go simultaneously. We also know that the millions tied up in the start-up of the three projects could, in some cases, be used for more urgent priorities, such as housing, for example. My question is: what efforts can we make to agree on staging these projects and redistributing the funding, or is all of this locked in in a way that we absolutely have no say over? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree that we have infrastructure needs throughout, like housing, like education, like schools, health centres, et cetera, right across the board. We constantly go down to the federal government and explain. I hate to use the term, but I call ourselves the poor cousin. We have a huge gap before we could actually be at the same place as southern Canada. I am not only looking at the federal government for that. I have been talking to our other jurisdictions, Premiers across Canada, to address that, as well. When we met with the Premiers, our first meeting, they gave us, out of four priorities, one priority just for the three territories. That will be addressed in the Arctic and northern framework within that, which have all of the issues, social issues, housing issues, et cetera. It goes across the gamut. We are going to keep doing that.

I also want to recognize that, although we may not be able to do all three projects as one, I would be a little bit hesitant at this time to prioritize any of the three because we have a minority government. At this point, if the minority government stays in, they will be picking depending on theirs. Right now, climate change is huge with the Liberal government, so Taltson is probably a favourable one. If the minority government gets tossed out in this next couple years, the next government might not be as big on climate change, and they might want the Slave Geological Road.

We got federal money to do the environmental assessments. I think we should be lining up all three and ready to put on the table. When we come to the time when we look at our priorities again, that might be sooner than later, we do have to look at what is reasonable for the Government of the Northwest Territories to be able to move forward. All three projects are viable. All three projects will bring employment to the Northwest Territories and business opportunities. I think for us to put it forward would not be the best way. It is better for us to have all three business plans and say, "You pick," whatever government is in power of the day. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Premier. Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With all due respect to the Premier, I don't agree that we should continue to invest millions in advancing these projects without seeing any business cases for any of them. Even at 25 percent, these are substantial amounts of money that are coming out of the GNWT, and they are speculative spending. There is no guaranteed return on this investment at this point or in the life of this government or even in this decade.

The thing about doing all this preparatory work is that, in some cases, it will need to be redone. For example, early in my time in the NWT, I covered the Mackenzie Gas Project hearings. Even though the Mackenzie Gas Project had been proposed in the 1970s, everything that was produced in the 2000s, they started from scratch. The idea of putting out the money for projects that won't be advanced in a reasonable amount of time when we have other competing priorities is something that I am really struggling with.

My specific question to you is: when will we see business cases for all of these projects so that we can have a reasonable discussion about priorities? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you can get the Minister of ITI to answer that question?

Minister for ITI.

I think that one thing that we do need to keep in mind, while maybe the 25 percent that we are putting forward is very dear, or definitely we have things we could be spending our money on, we do need to remember that that has leveraged us a 75 percent amount of funding from the federal government that can only be used towards these types of projects. While we are spending money that potentially we could use elsewhere, we are actually bringing in larger amounts of dollar into our territory which is a contribution to our economy that we wouldn't have otherwise.

Oftentimes in hard economic times, it is a known government thing to build infrastructure. It is a way to continue moving people forward and keeping them employed. While I recognize that that is a concern, that our funds are very limited, I would argue that the amount of money that the 25 percent is bringing in and leveraging is really, really good for our economy, and we need it to keep contractors and business as we move forward.

I can't tell you when the business plans will be completed. A lot of that is going to be part of and dependent on results. I would also say that the difference in technology and advancements in assessment-type work between 1970s and 2000s was quite a significant amount of technological increase in society. Therefore, yes, of course, that would have to then be redone. However, I don't think we would be doing the same amount of rework should these projects not advance.

I would also like to argue that I don't think that these are exclusive of each other, and all three could be advanced. It is just going to be a matter of staging our projects in a manner that we can move forward sustainably where we are not putting ourselves into a huge amount of debt to complete the projects. I agree with what the Premier says that it is going to somewhat come down to the whim of the federal government. We are at their whim. I also have no problems with going and pleading the case of, "You need to pay for more than 75 percent of this. We have a serious deficit in infrastructure."

I am going to do my damndest to ensure that we lobby as hard as we can with the federal government to pay for more of it, because this is not just a "this would be nice to have." This is a massive deficit to our basic infrastructure needs that none of the other provinces are dealing with. I feel like that is the case we really need to make strongly with the federal government, and I have no qualms with doing so. Sorry. It is probably not the answer that you wanted.