Thanks, Madam Chair. Committee would like to consider Tabled Document 437-19(2): Capital Estimates 2022-2023. General comments Finance, Industry, Tourism and Investment, and Infrastructure. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. We will take a short recess and resume with the first item.

---Recess.

I'll now call Committee of the Whole back to order.

Committee, we've agreed to consider Tabled Document 437-19(2) Capital Estimates 2022-2023, and we have the Minister's opening remarks yesterday. We've agreed to begin with general comments on the capital estimates, and I will go to Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I do have some technical questions. So I'm wondering if the Minister may want to have her colleagues with her, or how would you like to do that?

Minister?

Madam Chair, I do have witnesses available so I'd be happy to have them in the room and ready to go.

Did you want -- what we can do is -- if they want to sit through general comments, we can have them come in if you need them.

Yes, I propose to bring in two of them for the general comments, which I expect might be more technical on the one side and then switch them out as need be when we get to the Department of Finance, please. Minister and Terence Courtoreille, please.

Sergeant-at-arms, please escort the witnesses to the Chamber.

Welcome. Minister, will you please introduce your witnesses for the record and so we know who is who.

Madam Chair, on your right, Bill MacKay is deputy minister of Department of Finance, and on the left Terence Courtoreille is deputy secretary to the Financial Management Board.

Thank you. All right. I will go back to Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, I appreciate the Minister getting her witnesses here.

So this is the largest ever capital budget for this government, and I'm just wondering how much of it is actually unspent projects, unspent capital works from the previous year. So, you know, are there carryovers, or there's this new term that the department seems to be using, "future cash flow.” How much of it is unspent funds from last year or previous years beyond that. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, there always are certain amount of carryovers that do accrue but I'd suggest in the hopes of having an exact number, if available, that we direct that to the department, to Mr. Bill MacKay and perhaps thereafter Mr. Courtoreille. Thanks.

Thank you, Minister. Deputy Minister Mackay.

Thank you. Mr. Courtoreille.

Thank you. Member.

Okay, thanks. So it looks like it would be in the neighborhood of $90 million, is that correct?

Thank you. Minister.

[Audio]

Okay. Thanks, Madam Chair. I'm just trying to reconcile that against -- I know we've got a supplementary appropriation, which I'm not supposed to be talking about, where there's actually a negative adjustment of $126 million. So how does that relate to the $90 million I guess carryover that seems to be on page 3 of the document. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, and, yes, we are making efforts to do, frankly, a better job through the year of adjusting budgeting on projects so that there doesn't have to be a significant of an adjustment or a significant appropriation later in the budgeting cycle. And so the idea being that as the year progresses and as this particular capital plan progresses, we will be keeping an eye on it so that when projects do see changes, as any large scale projects will, that we can bring that to the attention of the House earlier, and it -- that's been foreshadowing that there is one of those coming later this session. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Member.

Thanks, Madam Chair. That's great. I'm not sure I actually got reconciliation of the 90 versus the 126, but I'm just very mindful of how little time I've got left on the clock.

So is this capital budget going to be in compliance with the fiscal responsibility policy? Thank you.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, it is certainly my anticipation that it will be, and we'll have actuals ready in the fall to know exactly what numbers we have available to spend on capital at that time. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member.

Thanks. Just a comment, I guess it would be really helpful if there was a page in the capital estimates that demonstrated how this is going to be in compliance with the fiscal responsibility policy. But I'll leave that for the Minister and her officials to take up with the next capital estimates.

Can someone tell me how much do we actually spend on housing? How much do we anticipate spending on housing in 2022-2023 in terms of capital? We've got about a $10.6 million, you know, budget here for the Housing Corp, which is only for information, but of course a lot of their stuff happens on the O and M side. But can anybody tell me how much is actually going to be spent on capital projects related to housing in 2022-2023. Thanks.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Member's already identified the fact that the capital estimates allocated to Housing Corporation are $10.6 million.

Thank you. Member.

Okay, thanks. Well, I've I look at the last couple years on the O and M side for Housing Corp, and it seems to be about $77 million. Some of that -- a lot of that I guess is staff, but some of it actually goes into care and maintenance of homes as well, as I seem to understand, or funding of LHOs or whatever. So do we actually know how much we spend on housing -- or how much we anticipate spending on the capital side for housing next year?

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm not sure if I am realizing what is different about the numbers I have versus not. Let me see if I can direct that to the deputy minister and see if perhaps I just misunderstood the question.

Thank you. Deputy minister.

Mr. Courtoreille.

Thank you. Member.

Thanks. I've got other questions but I need to move on to my comments, thanks.

Madam Chair, I voted against the last capital budget and I intend to do so again on this one. I think we are spending too much money on capital. We're going into debt at a greater rate than any other -- any time that I've ever seen in my six years in past governments as well.

$150 million, this is what the Minister said yesterday, $150 million in this budget alone is for roads, and this budget shows us spending $10.6 million on housing, when housing is a priority for this Assembly, and certainly for myself, many of the Regular MLAs, this is completely out of balance.

You know, so we're spending 30 percent of our total capital budget on roads alone. That's what the Minister said yesterday. We're going into debt faster than ever. I listened carefully to the Minister's fiscal update an September 15th. We're not just on the precipice of a fiscal cliff, Madam Chair; we're going over the cliff right now.

You know, you look at the slides from the Minister's presentation on September 15th, capital expenses are outpacing total revenues. GNWT deficit is permanent when the federal capital is removed. Growth and debt is outpacing everything. 17.2 percent per annum over a period of years, no intent to actually raise any more revenues. We gave away $21 million in a significant discovery licence that could have been potential revenues. We've cut small business tax. We're going over the cliff. We're starting going over the cliff, and I don't sense that this government is doing anything to stop that. And the money that we do have, we're not even spending on the right priorities, Madam Chair.

I'm going to be voting against this, and I'm very frustrated that I don't have any time left on the clock. Thanks.

General comments. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm looking here at a $500 million capital budget, and I think the question we all need to ask ourselves is how are we going to pay for this?

We know our fiscal responsibility policy allows us to pay for 50 percent of this with debt and based on all of the previous public accounts, it's quite likely that 50 percent of this will be paid for by debt.

It's worth noting that about $200 million of this is federal dollars. I think that fact is important because it shows that we are still largely driven by federal priorities. But also the allure of 75-cent dollars is largely a myth. We're actually operating at 40-cent dollars from the federal government when we look at what is being funded. I don't think the hard work has been put in to the capital budget to make those tough decisions and to prioritize maximum spending.

We also know that this is a capital budget that, in many ways, is still the last Assembly's capital budget and is still driving the last Assembly's priorities, and that's just the reality of some of these long-term infrastructure projects. They will be on the books for many many Assemblies to come.

A bit to the kind of procedural aspects, I don't believe we actually have any sense of what this capital budget will cost us. And I mean that in a number of ways.

There is $47 million largely for long-term care facilities in this but we know that long-term care beds, each bed costs over a hundred thousand dollars a year to operate. We also know our health authority is running a massive deficit. I don't know how we are building those beds without having proper costing to be provided in the operations budget for the health department already running a deficit.

We know that there's $84 million in here largely for roads, and we know that roads cost a lot of money to maintain, and our current roads are not being maintained properly. We know our deferred maintenance budget for all of our capital is just millions and millions of dollars in debt. Our infrastructure is crumbling, and here we are building more.

I don't believe hard decisions have been made. I don't believe there's a connection between capital and operations that this government has taken seriously. Every time we add capital, that means a cut to an operation's budget. That is the way to look at it. It could mean debt, which is just a cut for a later time. But when we spend money here and then when we don't include the money to actually maintain that infrastructure, we are just setting ourselves up for disaster.

There's a couple of projects that are continuing on for the Power Corp, over $200 million worth of Power Corp infrastructure for the complete cost of projects, here - the Fort Providence transmission line, and Inuvik wind, most importantly. But we know our Power Corp's infrastructure is billions of dollars in debt. We know that when we build infrastructure for the Power Corp, it's not revenue generating. Ratepayers are -- it's cost passed on to ratepayers in increases in rates.

Building a line to Fort Providence may be a good idea, but the people of Fort Providence are not paying for that line. It is not anything that actually makes us money. We all know there is a massive infrastructure deficit. We know the state of our infrastructure is in terrible state. We know our fiscal cliff is approaching, and it is an unsustainable path. However, when I look at the disconnect between our government's priorities, the operating budget and this capital budget, I just can't help but think that proper thought and strategic direction was not put in it. I think that is no more apparent than the two percent of this budget that is going towards housing.

Housing is a priority of this Assembly. It is a priority of every single Member in here. And only two percent of this is to build new houses. I cannot reconcile that fact with the political priorities of this House, Madam Chair.

And for some reason, we treat housing completely different. If we -- you know, we are spending $21.7 million for schools in this budget, and then we go and ask the school boards or the department to find the O and M to run those schools. For housing, we don't do that. We are so concerned about 2038 and the O and M for operating housing, and we do the math every time we build a housing unit, whether we have the funding to maintain it.

And yet here we are with 500 other million dollars where we've done none of the math. We've not done the math on what it costs to make sure that we're not having a differed maintenance backlog. We have not done the math to make sure that our highways and bridges are properly maintained. There is an obsession that we can just build capital and it doesn't -- and it maintains itself.

We need to make sure that every time we build something, the O and M is there, the care and maintenance of there -- is there, and that's not being done. The only place it seems to be even considered is in housing, and that's why we won't build any more housing.

So Madam Chair, I am frustrated that once again I see $10.6 million as a somewhat made up number for housing, and I can't seem to get the Housing Corp to actually build more housing.

I would gladly cut two percent of this budget to double the Housing Corp's two percent. But I guess I will start with a question. Thank you for indulging me.

Can the Minister of Finance give me a sense of what the O and M cost is of this capital budget is. If we build this $500 million worth of infrastructure across a variety of departments, how much money should we reasonably expect to see increased in the operating budget. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, that question is not as simple as it sounds on first blush. There is a variety of different types of infrastructure in this budget. There are deferred maintenance budgets that are sitting in, for example, the Department of Infrastructure as there are also budgets available in some of the other departments for provision of health care services or education. Some of the infrastructure that we need to deliver on is so that those projects, the programs and services can continue to function.

So certainly, there will be some projects where there are obvious connections and obvious costs that can be accounted for. And I've previously committed, and I'm happy to commit here, that we do want to start including an O and M schedule in the future infrastructure budget to the best of the ability that we can. But it's not simply saying, you know, dollar for dollar, it's going to be X amount. Depending on what the infrastructure item is at play will determine what the costs of the O and M are and sometimes you simply have to make the investments in the infrastructure, or you can't deliver the program or the service. So I appreciate the frustration, and I hear it. But it's not going to be as simple as all that.

Again, with that said, we're going to try -- not try -- we will be including an O and M schedule. Hopefully it starts to get some of the answers that the Member's seeking. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The rest of my comments and the points that I made in my opening remarks, I will illustrate through each department that each of these projects comes with long-term commitments of O and M, which is simply not room we have fiscally. So no more further questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I just want to say I do agree with me colleague about looking ahead and being proactive on operations costs when we are making our infrastructure and capital plans.

I want to say that I'm actually pleased to see a large infrastructure investment going forward. One thing when economies are bad, that governments do, is they build infrastructure. It's a way that we can keep people in the Northwest Territories employed over the next while as COVID really does make our future quite uncertain, particularly our economic future going forward.

Another piece that keeps striking me is that the cost of building houses is only going to escalate and is escalating currently due to the lack of supplies, etcetera. Not having roads only creates more expense for our territory to build houses. So if we have the roads to move the materials around easier, it will be easier for us to build houses in the long run. So I think I don't have a lot of optimism sitting here two years in where we're at with our housing and whether or not we are going to achieve that priority. Therefore, second to that, I would say invest in the roads. We have a lot of construction companies in the North. We have a lot of labourers and skilled labourers that work on road and apprentices. To me, this is the way we can make it through the COVID economic downturn.

And having just come back from the climate change conference, I don't have a lot of -- having been an ice engineer on the ice road, I don't have a lot of faith that we're going to be building ice roads going forward. So to me, investing in roads right now is smart.

We often just heard it yesterday, or the other day, the time to have built the ice road -- or sorry, the road to the diamond mines was 20 years ago. So do we want to be sitting in 20 more years with no ice roads saying where we should have built roads 20 years ago.

So more of a comment than a question, Madam Chair. But I would like to say that I think this is the only way we can move forward in the next while. Thank you.

Thank you, Member for Great Slave. Member for Thebacha.

I just want to reiterate some of the -- what is said by my colleague from Great Slave. The economic recovery from this pandemic is extremely important. New infrastructure is important. Economic growth is important. And I do not necessarily agree with a couple of other comments that were made by my other colleagues because I feel that, you know, this pandemic had a great effect on the Northwest Territories, especially with the -- economically, and the only way we're going to recover is making sure that people have something to look forward to, and infrastructure is part of that, apprenticeships. The whole getting people back to work. New infrastructure means new things for Indigenous governments and private industry. And this is the way to go. And I totally agree with the comments that were made by the Member from Great Slave. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member for Thebacha. General comments. Member for Hay River South.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Myself as well, I encourage spending on highways and more specifically the Mackenzie Valley Highway. That project has been going on since I was -- I worked on part of it when I was 16 or 15 years old for crying out loud so you know how long ago that is. A hundred years ago. But, you know, we -- if we want to move ahead, we got to -- we need -- you know, we have to do something major.

You know, having a highway and opening it up is going to, you know, encourage investment in the North and encourage, you know, more development. It's also going to allow, you know, those stranded communities that don't have highway access with the ability to, you know, participate in -- you know, in what we have on the main highways system.

When we talk about -- you know, there was comments about made about housing as well. And I agree that, you know, we need housing. But, you know, to get that housing, you know, it can't just be a government project. It has to be solved by the private sector, by Indigenous governments, and through employment of Northerners through infrastructure expenditure.

And what I'm hoping and expecting that, you know, those sitting across from me are, you know, talking with their counterparts with the federal government, going to them with some sound proposals to ensure that we find the money to pay for this. Like, we are a creature of the federal government. That's what we are.

So I don't mind -- I don't mind spending the money. You know, all areas needs some support. But if we don't push some type of development and push infrastructure, we're just going to be a social state. Thank you.

Thank you, Member from Hay River South. General comments. Thank you, Members.

Seeing that there are no further comments, we will proceed to the detail of the tabled document beginning with the Department of Finance.

The committee has agreed to forego general comments on each department so does the committee agree that we will proceed to the detail contained in the document?

Committee, the Department of Finance begins on page 26, and we will defer the department's totals and review the estimates by activity summary beginning on page 27 with information items on page 28. Are there any questions, comments? Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. On page 28, the mineral administration and registry system, can someone tell me what the total cost of that is going to be, or ballpark figure. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, if I might suggest if we could stop the clock briefly. I was hoping to switch my witnesses out, and I don't want to take time away from the Member to do that.

Which?

Chief information officer Rick Wind will be joining us, please.

Okay. Sergeant-at-arms, would you please change the witnesses.

All right, thank you. Minister, just introduce your witness again for the record.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this is chief information officer Rick Wind.

Welcome. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks. Do I need to ask the question again? All right. Can someone tell me what the ballpark figure of this mineral administration or registry system is and where we're at with its development? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

I'm not -- I don't have the number in front of me right now, Madam Chair, but that is being transferred to the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment, which is where the Mineral Resources Act Regulatory System is residing. And as I understand, there were some delays back in COVID but it is on track now, and it is moving forward. But I'll just defer to Mr. Wind to see if he has a number as to the estimated total. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Wind.

Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, I'm not going to deal with where this is going. I'll deal with that when it comes to a sup.

What are we getting here for this? The reason why I'm raising this is in the last Assembly, we dealt with a lot of devolution legislation that we inherited. There was a lot of public registries set up. I know I've been critical of Department of Environment and Natural Resources in the past for their protected areas registry, the lack of information, the lack of rigor to it. But here we are spending $3.7 million on something for mining. And the other departments don't seem to get any money or do anything with their public registry. So what is this going to allow us do. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So Madam Chair, the MARS project for -- one of the more significant aspects of it certainly is to bring online staking to the Northwest Territories, which really brings us up to par on something that we are rather painfully behind on, that allows for a much more efficient system and a much more efficient process for those that are actually out doing the staking and for prospectors will hopefully, as I said, bring us into the modern age but also encourage those who are out to be doing -- to be out and doing the prospecting. It allows for more efficient management of the system from within. And, you know -- yeah, it's going to allow the Mineral Resources Act to, again, be part of the modern system that we are hoping that it will be by, you know -- right now, it's all on paper. So there's boxes and boxes of paper of what's out there. That's not a good way to maintain your systems. It's not a good way to ensure efficiency. It's a huge amount of information. We're a huge territory. There's lots of data and information out there. This is a modernization of the system that arguably could have happened a long time ago, but it also has to take its place in line just like everything else. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, I think actually quite a bit actually is available online right now. But is there going to be some sort of policy discussion around how fees are set for online staking? I don't think we want to be in the situation where, like, with significant discovery licenses where companies get to tie up huge swaths of land and do nothing, and that's what online staking can allow. So is there going to be a place and a time for the public, others to weigh in, about how this is actually going to operate and the appropriate fee structures and so on? Is that going to happen in -- because I've -- I'm not aware of any discussion of this. I raised it in the last Assembly when we were talking about the Mineral Resources Act. Nobody else wanted to talk about it, especially the Minister. But when are we going to have that policy debate and discussion around online staking and appropriate fees and so on.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn't here in the last Assembly but I'm more than happy to talk to the Member about the fees. There's ongoing work happening right now in terms of developing the Mineral Resources Act and the regulatory system that is required to bring that into force and to have it implemented. So that project is underway. The engagement processes for it are underway. It's a huge project. It's a huge piece of legislation, and the regulatory aspects of it have many branches, including this one.

So I will go back to the Department of ITI and find out what the schedule is for engagement on the various different elements of that act and -- or, rather, of the regulations. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks for that commitment because I've been asking for that since the start of this Assembly, and I was raising it as an issue in the last Assembly about the need for some kind of a roadmap for how all of this was going to work. I haven't seen anything. And I pay pretty close attention to this, as the Minister well knows. There has been no discussion of claim staking so far during the life of this Assembly in any venue that I've ever been engaged in or involved in. So I really do encourage that to start to take place in parallel with the development of this system.

I don't think I have any further questions on this item. Thanks, Madam Chair. But if the Minister wishes to respond, I'd be delighted to hear it. Thank you.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I think really more of the Minister of ITI and not really so much as the Minister of Finance.

I am very committed to the Mineral Resources Act regulatory development. I've been pushing hard to see that it's on track and to see that it involves a lot of engagement. It's going to be improved with the more stakeholders and the more people are involved in terms of discussing it. I'm -- I do think the Member will hopefully agree that we've had a lot of outreach on a lot of aspects on the Mineral Resources Act thus far, and I'm happy to continue to do that. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think online map staking is long overdue. Can I just get an estimated idea of when we expect that to exist in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I have the wrong binder open to answer all these detailed questions. But I can say that the project is on track to have its completion of the regulations that will allow the act to come into force this Assembly, which means that it's really within the next couple of years, and if we'll all bear with me, I think the folks from ITI are waiting patiently upstairs. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North. No? No further questions. Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I might as well stay on this vein because it did spur a question in me.

It's my understanding with the MARS program, which, yes, we're way behind and I know that industry and explorers have been crying for it for a while, and it does deter investment in our territory.

My question is, there is an economic spinoff for this as well, is there not, and maybe with her Finance hat on, the Minister can answer. It's my understanding that there will have to be a large amount of actual on-the-ground surveying done in order for this work to be implemented. Is that correct, or am I mixing that up with -- or perhaps I'm mixing that up with the land claims. But would that be something that could all be rolled in together then, perhaps, Madam Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought I was going to get a question that would allow me to talk about the estimated overall economic impacts of the overall capital plan, but I realize that the question was actually a bit more narrow.

I don't have that in front of me right now, Madam Chair. I know that the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Investment is upstairs listening. So if I might, I think that might be an opportunity for me to answer that question when she's here. Thanks.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, then I'll ask that question. What is the economic spinoff? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Member -- sorry, Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, there's -- and actually I -- there's -- I mean, there's a variety of different economic spinoffs that come. There's economic impacts for capital spending that come in the form of anticipated GDP impacts of almost $200 million. There's also labor income that comes over of a hundred million dollars. And then the taxation income that the government gets on people who -- not on people, but on the taxes people are paying when they are employed. So there's quite a high number of -- also 944 jobs are anticipated from this kind of a capital spend.

You know, and those -- of course, these are all estimates because, you know, certainly it depends -- there's timing of different projects, and some projects do proceed at different paces. But there is a significant impact that comes from the spending on infrastructure.

That's not to say that we don't need to balance the type of spend on infrastructure that we have, that we need to ensure that we're spending on infrastructure that is meaningful and that's going to benefit all of the priorities that we have for this government, which are, you know, complex. But just to say that it's not only the 400 million, several million dollars that we're spending directly if there's hundreds of millions of dollars that impact thereafter. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Are there any further questions, comments to the -- what section -- information shared services? I'm seeing none. I'll call the page.

Finance, information system shared service, infrastructure investments, $2,199,000. Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. Please turn to page 29 for Management Board Secretariat with information item on page 30. Questions. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. How much of the $6 million is federal money through investing in Canada infrastructure fund. Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Madam Chair, I would suggest that go to the deputy minister, please.

Thank you. Deputy minister MacKay.

Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to see we're extending fibre along the highway to Tuk. I think as has been stated previously, I think every time we build a road it's good to extend the fibre line as well along with it.

Can I just get clarification. Who will own this fibre line at the end? Will this be wrapped into the entire Mackenzie Valley P3, or is this to be owned by Northwestel? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this is right now what's on -- what's on paper here is the anticipated extension to the Mackenzie Valley fibre line, and so indeed if that proceeds, it would just be an extension of that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I just have the Minister speak to whether we anticipate to run into the kind of last mile problem when we get fibre to Tuk? I know we have fibre running up the valley, but it actually doesn't exist in many communities because any internet service provider has not then taken it, built the hub, and ran it to peoples' homes. That's often cost prohibitive for even Northwestel to do with millions of subsidies.

Is there someone on the other end of Tuk or expecting to become the ISP to actually make sure we complete the last mile of this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the Mackenzie Valley fibre line all the way through up to and including - if it comes to include Tuktoyaktuk, it is never meant to be a final in-the-home service. But what has happened in the last year or two years is that Northwestel, by virtue of the agreements they have with CRTC, because they are very directly regulated by CRTC compared to other providers in other parts of the country, are under an agreement right now to provide the availability of fibre to the home. That last mile connection is now meant to be available through them under agreement with the CRTC. So this is not a GNWT project. It's not a GNWT "thing" per se. We're certainly being kept aware of the pace of their work and being kept aware of what's going on. So in fact, they're anticipating work in Tuk for the next two years, if I recall their timeline correctly, that actually has nothing necessarily to do. Like, the services in Tuk will improve without necessarily there being any changes to the Mackenzie Valley fibre line. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So when we built the Mackenzie Valley fibre line, I remember speaking to one of the internet service providers in Inuvik. And he said once that was built and he wasn't having to purchase broadband off of Northwestel telephone infrastructure, his costs went down about 99 percent. And I just think that is one of the success stories of the GNWT actually owning the backbone to telecoms infrastructure is we can allow competition and we can, you know, create a competitive internet environment that ultimately reduces costs.

I'm just curious when we extend it to Tuk, do we expect to change our current wholesale rate at all, and in fact just lower it is really my ask. I don't really believe we need to run this P3 at any sort of profit, and we should be selling the broadband as cheaply as possible. But are there any anticipated changes for the purchaser at the end of the Tuk line for the wholesale price they pay us under this. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I don't have the information of that being under consideration right now. Perhaps I just check in with Mr. Wind and see if he has any comments on that question. Thanks.

Thank you. Mr. Wind.