Thank you. Member.

Madam Chair, I think I'll go to the Fort Simpson LNG. Where -- are we in the planning stage in that project, or do we have plans done and do we have costing associated with it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The -- I'm going to see if Jenkins can speak a little more to that in terms of where we're at in this initiative. They're all still in the early stage. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Jenkins.

Thank you. Member.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I was going to lead up to that with, you know, climate change and the flooding that was going on is that I suspect that with the current generation system being in the downtown, on the island, that it would have to be relocated. And so I would expect that after that this project may be somewhat delayed if it does go ahead because you've got to look for land and that type of thing, so. And so I guess more of a comment and if you want to comment on it or the Minister wants to comment on it, that's fine. Thank you.

Thank you, Member. Take it as a comment. Are there any further questions, comments under the energy and strategic initiatives? Seeing none -- I was going to take a break.

Well, we'll finish with yours and so then we change out the witness. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. So I think I learned something yesterday. I'll start with my comments and then I will ask some questions at the end if there's enough time.

I guess this is, you know, to no one's surprise, the least happy part of the capital budget for me. And I think this is what's driving us over the fiscal cliff, is the money that's being spent in this part of the budget. And this is only -- you know, a number of these projects are still only in the planning stage. So I think there's real questions around whether we can afford them at the end of the day. Even if we got 100 percent dollars from the federal government, we still have to operate them. And as we learned from Inuvik-Tuk highway where, what, a couple years after it's built we're now trying to scramble to find $14 million over five years just to keep it from, you know, sinking into the permafrost, so. So I guess, you know, again I see that we're spending ten times as much -- more than ten times as much on these big infrastructure projects as we are on housing. That just doesn't reflect the priorities I have as an MLA and, you know, I've never accepted these large infrastructure projects as priorities for this Assembly. I was on record as saying that right from the very beginning.

Now -- and I think we have to stop, you know, trying to pretend that we're going to do all three of these, especially at the same time. And you know, I've said that if we have to build one of them, I would put money into the Mackenzie Valley Highway and get it done, get it done right, do it at a scale and pace where communities can actually benefit from it. And I think that, you know, what happened with Canyon Creek is a good example of how it can be done. But these other projects I just can't see Slave Geological Province route or even Taltson expansion, how communities are going to be able to benefit from them at the scale and pace to which they are being proposed. And once we -- especially if we ever get business cases for them. So as I've said, I just don't think we can afford these projects, even if they're 100 percent federal dollars or some sort of P3 arrangement where we have to make ongoing payments that then eat into our O and M and our ability to spend money on programs and services.

I guess some of the concerns I have with specific projects, Fort Providence transmission line.

I have asked many times what else could we get for $60 million to make those two communities self-sufficient in energy. Why is the only solution that's being brought forward extending a transmission line to those two communities. I'd like to know what the other alternatives might be and I've never got a decent answer.

And when I ask those kinds of questions, I am asking for, you know, lifecycle greenhouse gas analysis of these projects, and the alternatives have that have been considered. And as I understand it, the department doesn't do this kind of analysis. And so these are just items that appear in the flawed 2030 energy strategy where our greenhouse gas emission reductions are all back-end loaded into Taltson expansion, and we're never going to get there.

I do want to say a little bit more about the Whati transmission line as well. I presented information in the last Assembly about for the same amount of cost, you could actually end up with mini hydro in three Tlicho communities - Whati, Gameti and Wekweeti. Some of that, there might be some more engineering work that's required for that but for the same cost, those communities could actually control their own energy systems for decades. That's not I think -- for the same costs so I just don't know why we're spending money on a very expensive transmission line.

I also want to talk a little bit about the Mackenzie Valley Highway. You know, this is now in environmental assessment for 12 years. 12 years. I think we're getting close to a world record probably for a project that's in environmental assessment. And the reason why is because it was submitted way too early before the funding was even in place. And it's gone through so many changes, new project descriptions have to be generated, new developers assessment reports, parts of it are hived off and submitted as separate projects. That's not how you should do an environmental assessment. You end up wasting a lot of money and a lot of the regulator's time in doing it that way.

So my advice to the department is do not submit the Slave Geological Province route or even Taltson before you actually have some of the funding lined up or you're going to drag out the environmental assessments for decades on those projects as well.

And I hope that you find ways to apply some of the lessons learned from the Tlicho all-season road where the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board talked about how the whole-of-government approach that's found in the project assessment policy that Cabinet has adopted failed to ensure that it -- at the end of the day, there was a robust participation from this government and that you had the best possible evidence before that co-management body. So I've yet to see the project assessment policy come forward, and I've been on the record as saying that I believe that's what's happening there, is that our professional and technical staff are being muzzled from participating in reviews of large projects. And that's not an appropriate way for any public government to operate.

So, yeah, I've been pretty critical now, Madam Chair, of a lot of these projects. I don't think they are the best bang for the buck in terms of making sure that our communities are self-sufficient. And I don't believe they're probably even good value for greenhouse gas emissions in some cases, and some of them are going to create more greenhouse gas emissions. But I do have some specific questions if I can, Madam Chair. The community hydro that's listed here, what's that actually all about. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I think the Member has, if I can just before we get to the question, is I do want to note that this is a priority of the 19th Assembly to advance and I think that's the key, advancing some of these big projects - Mackenzie Valley Highway, Slave Geological, and the Taltson - and I think that we as a government, that's what we're doing now, is advancing some of these. And you know, respecting that a lot of these do take time and we respect that given the different regulations and the environmental work that goes along with major projects.

The Member's asking about the hydro plan. I'm going to see if Jenkins can speak to it. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Member.

Thanks, Madam Chair. What's happening with the Mount Gaudet access road, is there any prospect that this work is going to start anytime soon? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, again we are in the early stages of the Mount Gaudet, and we are working with the Indigenous groups. Regulatory applications for these projects are currently with the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board. The process is currently paused to be able to provide Infrastructure with an opportunity to discuss and address some of the community's concerns that were raised at the public review period.

We are working with Pehdzeh Ki First Nation to coordinate discussions on next steps for the Mount Gaudet access road. So that's where we're at with the -- with that.

We do have a Wrigley training committee that was established last January to be able to oversee some of the community and regional capacity building for the project. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Members, we're going to take a short recess and then we'll get back and finish up energy and strategic initiatives. We've got two more people that still want to have comments. Thanks.

---Short Recess

[Audio] energy, we're continuing on with Infrastructure, energy and strategic initiatives. And next on my list is Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, when I'm looking at this and the way it's split up, we have the $115 million for the large capital projects and it's split into the infrastructure contributions and the tangible capital assets. How much of this money roughly would the department or Minister say is 100 percent dollars or percentage that comes from the federal government. Thank you.

Thank you, Member. Minister of Infrastructure.