Thank you, Member. Minister.

Madam Chair, the largest number of the projects that are impacted here are the Investing in Canada infrastructure projects. Those are the ones that make up the largest chunk of this particular supplementary appropriation request. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member.

Okay, thanks for that explanation. Can I get a sense of how much of this supplementary appropriation is the result of carry-overs from the previous year? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have a percentage here. Sorry, Madam Chair, I don't have the math right in front of me. I have two different numbers. Perhaps I'll ask if one of the two witnesses has the total number so that I'm not sitting and doing the math while the Member is waiting.

Mr. Koe.

Member, can you just clarify your question?

Thanks, Madam Chair. Can I get, as a percentage of this supplementary appropriation, how much of it is carried over from the previous financial year? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Mr. Koe.

Thank you. Member.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Well, that's great because it accords with the table I'm looking at. Can I get some sense of the trend of the carry-overs over time? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Madam chair, certainly, a percentage of the total carry-overs from subsequent years certainly, this is the largest percentage over the course of several other years. The average hovers at just over 12 percent. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member.

Okay, thanks, Madam Chair. That's the issue here. In the past, it was as small as 12 percent, but now it's up to 40. I guess I'd like to understand why we're having this much carry-over in infrastructure spending from one year to the next. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Certainly, the 42.5 is a much higher number than what I would like to see, as well. I'm cognizant of that. I don't disagree with the Member in that regard. As far as this particular year, quite a number, as I'd mentioned at the outset, of this is relating to the Invest in Canada infrastructure plan, which was a significant project funding program put forward by the federal government, of which we were able to benefit quite a bit from, but it meant that we simply weren't able to carry through and will complete all of those projects. Some of the individual projects have their own individual explanations for why that might have been. For example, the wind project up in Inuvik required further study even afterwards. Then there is also a diesel plant which is now moving forward, but it just took a bit more time to get moving forward on that particular plan because of planning requirements. Each one of these has its own reason. I can certainly go through each one, Madam Chair, but the overall is that there was a large influx of money and that it simply does take a lot of planning and a lot of capacity to get through that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member.

Thanks, Madam Chair. The reason why I'm raising this is I was in the last Assembly. We saw this trend of increasing amounts of carry-overs from one year to the next. I took the previous Finance Minister to task over this and suggested that we needed to have some way of tracking what the reason was over time as to why we can't get the money out the door, why we can't do the spending. This is increasingly critical during this pandemic, that we find ways to get money out the door to help stimulate our economy. As the largest driver in our economy, we have to get the money out the door. I need to understand whether this is cashflow problems with the federal government? Is it that we don't have enough capacity to get procurement done in a timely fashion? Is it issues around the contractor capacity is maxed out? What is the problem? Is there a systematic way of tracking what the issue is in terms of getting this money out the door? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, there is not one single reason, but there are a number of reasons. I would certainly say I would like to have a better way of tracking. I would like to ensure we can track exactly those reasons and see what trends there are. Without knowing exactly how we would do that, I would like to make a sort of tentative commitment that we'll be doing that kind of tracking. Again, in this particular case, it was as bad as it was largely because of these particular projects. Quite a large number of large projects all came available for funding all at the same time, which did maximize GNWT capacity in terms of procurement, in terms of project management. It also maximized just local industry capacity and the ability to actually find the contractors in communities to deliver on those projects. Those are two explanations, both at the procurement stage and at the delivery stage. That said, as far as more specifics, Madam Chair, it would be my intention to be back here next year with a much more detailed analysis of those specifics. Thank you, Madam Chair.