Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Accountability and transparency in all public dealings, in all public accounting, is fundamental. It's critical. I share the Member's view entirely on that. This particular project has gone through quite tremendous financial reporting. I acknowledge the comments of the Member just now, and I appreciate the faith that's being placed in the Department of Finance and in all the GNWT to always do our best to be transparent and accountable. In addition to the lengthy briefing that was done, I just wanted to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker, with respect to some of that financial accounting and reporting that has gone on to date on this particular project.
Mr. Speaker, back in 2016 when preparing the public accounts, the decision was made to report the then-arrangements as being a public-private partnership. By doing so, it would then trigger an involvement of the Auditor General's office, and, indeed, ultimately the Auditor General's office agreed that that was the prudent course of action and in fact at that time also agreed with the GNWT costing of this project. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, for the years ending 2016, 2017, 2018, every year, the accumulated costs as the project was going on were being reported, and they were being audited, and they were being found every year by the Auditor General's office as being accurate. When the final project costs rolled in, they had been again reported in the March 2019 public accounts, which were tabled in this House in December and which will be reviewed by standing committee in April of this year. That briefing and that review, Mr. Speaker, is done with the Comptroller General's office, the Auditor General's office, and standing committee. It's done confidentially, and it's done with fulsomeness. I'm confident that it will have a very thorough review and that many questions will be asked, as they should be, and they'll be answered. To date, the Auditor General's office has been involved and been providing only positive reviews of all the financial aspects of the project. Speaking more specifically to that, this was a $350-million capital project. It was roughly $1,000 over its budget estimate. That is a very positive return in terms of the capital costing of the project.
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge, of course, that there has been much discussion in this House around the functioning of the building. That said, there has been action taken immediately by the GNWT to ensure that we have remained active and involved on the unfolding of the project, on the unfolding of the hospital as it has opened. We have already addressed more than once here the work that's been done on a GNWT level, at a senior management level, to be engaged, to take action, to ensure that the partners in the project are taking responsible action and, if necessary, to take action under the contract in order to have the service delivered as was provided for. It is a complex contract, but it is actively being monitored, Mr. Speaker.
My one last note, as I've spoken to before, is that property taxes were not considered as part of the capital cost. Property tax is considered part of the operations of any building, and, in the course of a building that is owned by the GNWT, those property taxes are not in fact property taxes; they're paid as a grant. That is something that is separate and apart from the capital cost or from the operating costs that's been factored into the contract here, and it's something that, at this point, has been factored into MACA's budget and will continue to be going forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.