Thanks, Madam Chair. Committee wishes to consider Tabled Document 438-19(2), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022; Tabled Document 439-19(2), Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022; Tabled Document 466-19(2), Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures and Borrowing Authorization), No. 4, 2020-2021; Bill 31, an Act to Amend the Pharmacy Act; Bill 32, an Act to Amend the Northern Employees Benefit Services Pension Plan Act; Bill 33, National Indigenous People's Day Act; Committee Report 17-19(2) Report on the Review of Bill 23, an Act to Amend the Public Utilities Act.

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, committee. We will have a recess and start with the first item.

---SHORT RECESS

I call Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, we have agreed to consider Tabled Document 438-19(2) Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022. Does the Minister of Finance have any opening remarks?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm here to present Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022. These Supplementary Estimates propose a total decrease of $109.8 million comprised of the following items:

• Firstly, a decrease of $113.5 million to adjust infrastructure project cash flows to realign the appropriations with the anticipated project schedules. This amount is fully offset by appropriations in future cash flows;
• Secondly, $2.8 million is required for surfaces overlay costs at the Fort Smith airport and $761,000 is required for airfield electrical replacement costs at the Fort Simpson airport. Both these projects are fully offset by revenues from the federal government; and,
• Finally, $203,000 is required for the acquisition of three portables to support the renovation of the Colville Lake school.

That concludes my opening remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions that the Members may have.

Thank you, Minister. Does the Minister wish to bring witnesses into the House?

Yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Ms. Semmler) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber.

Minister, would you please introduce your witnesses.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On the right, Madam Chair, is Bill MacKay, deputy minister of Finance. And on the left, I have Terence Courtoreille, deputy secretary to the Financial Management Board.

Thank you, Minister. Welcome. I will now open the floor for general comments. Seeing no further general comments, we'll review the supplementary estimates by department.

The committee has agreed to forego general comment on each department. Does committee agree to proceed to the detail contained in the tabled document?

Committee has agreed to begin with the review of the Department of Infrastructure. Committee, we will begin on page 6. Questions?

Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022. Department of Infrastructure, operations expenditures, energy and strategic initiatives, not previously authorized, $17,115,000. Does committee agree?

Oh, Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I'm furiously trying to flip between various documents here.

In the Minister's opening remarks, she talked about a $113.5 million negative appropriation, and I guess I've been here six years; I'm not sure I've ever seen a negative appropriation. Maybe once or twice before, but not of $113 million. So can I just get some more explanation from the Minister on what this is.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, in past years, certainly last year, there was concerns raised about the fact that there were carryovers and that the carryovers of course don't come until fairly late in the cycle. So this was an effort to better reflect the work that is in fact ongoing, and so the department asked the Department of Finance asked all departments to make an effort to determine what their actual ongoing projects schedules would be so that projects that are not going to be advanced on this cycle could have their budgets adjusted now rather than having to be a carryover. So instead of seeing it later, what we are seeing is that, indeed, the appropriation is being removed at this stage with a view to lining up in future years when in fact it's expected that the projects will be moving forward and the actual costs are being incurred. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Member.

Thanks, Madam Chair. So this money that's being taken out of the current financial year, so this appears before us now as the capital estimates of this $113 million that's been transferred into the capital estimates for 2022-2023; is that what I hear the Minister saying? Thanks.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. No, it's not transferred in. It is cash flowed differently, and perhaps, Madam Chair, I'm going to see if in fact Mr. Courtoreille may want to take a stab at explaining that.

Thank you. Mr. Courtoreille.

Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. So I always thought you couldn't kind of, like, carry over money from one year to the next. A big chunk of this is probably federal funding. So, like, how many years into the future can you carry this stuff forward before authorization runs out and you got to give the money back to the feds. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I anticipate that that will depend project by project. I'm not sure if we could perhaps give some examples or if the Department of Finance might be able to give some examples. So I -- and certainly, we'd have to come in with some discussions with our -- the federal funders where that is the case. So I'll see if, again, if there's an example perhaps deputy minister might be able to provide.

Thank you. Deputy Minister MacKay.

Thank you. Mr. Courtoreille.

Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.

Okay, thanks for that. So beyond that re-cash flowing, are there other, like, carryovers that are taking place? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Certainly, you can't say with a hundred percent certainty that there won't still be carryovers from the 2021-2022 infrastructure budget. What we're trying to do is minimize the number of carryovers that do take place on this. So certainly is our -- right now with -- and knowing that the construction season is -- for this year, at least, is drawing to a close or has drawn to a close. So hopefully we're in a position having reviewed this and bringing the negative appropriation, that there won't in fact be carryovers. So it's a different way of looking at the accounting of it that this one is again, our intention and our hope was to be more transparent at this stage rather than simply waiting until later in the cycle to say by the way we didn't spend the money. This is an actual effort to say look, to stay on top of it -- look just to stay on top of it, actually, yeah. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. So I guess just so I understand what's happening here now, we're going through each of the departments and parts of departments to show where this money is going to be re-cashflowed out of the current financial year into future years; is that what we're doing going through this supplementary appropriation? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.

Okay. Well, that's -- I'm a little bit better informed. I'm still concerned with the amount of carryovers or recash flowing, as it's called. What -- what's driving this? Perhaps COVID might be. But is it also our ability to get the money out the door. Do we need more people in the Department of Infrastructure to do contracting? Have we maxed out the contract capacity in the Northwest Territories? What's driving this $113 million re-cash flow into future years? Thanks, Madam.

Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I think the Member's listed certainly some of those factors. It's all the same factors as what drives -- when we bring a carryover forward in the spring. It can be a case where a project may not have had its approvals in place, a project might not have been able to find contracting, there may have been delays perhaps in design. There's certainly, in the last couple years, have been projects that have been delayed and, you know, due to COVID. You know, for example, the Tulita Health Care Centre was delayed when people weren't able to literally get into the community safely and compliant with concerns around ensuring protection against COVID-19 in a small community. So, you know, and again I think folks will recall we did have a significant number of carryovers as a result of COVID. I think those have started to wane as far as a singular reason. But all of the items that the Member's mentioned are still live and present. But, again, you know, the hope is that by instituting this now and intending to go through with this forward is that departments are all under an obligation to be paying attention as they go forward, budgets are kept more up to date, variances are kept more up to date. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I've been asking probably now for five years if there's a way to categorize carryovers, and now I guess we're calling them re-cashflowing by reasons so that we could then sort of pinpoint what some of the major reasons might be and actually address them and find better ways to actually get the money spent in the year in which it's actually appropriated. So is there any of that kind of tracking done now, because I've been asking for it for five years. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, every department certainly does have to justify if the actuals that they're incurring are significantly different from what's been budgeted. They certainly have to provide an explanation for that. But, again, it's going to be project by project and department by department because there's different reasons. And in fact, some projects have more than one reason why they may be experiencing a delay. So, you know, that matter of going through each one, I'm certainly happy to provide that further detail. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Are there any further questions, comments for this department? Seeing none. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022, Department of Infrastructure, operations expenditures, energy and strategic initiatives, not previously authorized, $17,115,000. Does committee agree?

Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022, Department of Infrastructure, operations expenditure, total department, not previously authorized, $17,158,000. Does committee agree?

Committee we will now consider the Department of Education, Culture and Employment on page 7. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022. Department of Education, Culture and Employment, capital investment expenditures, junior kindergarten to grade 12 school services, not previously authorized, negative $3,087,000. Does committee agree? Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. So this is an interesting one where we're spending money for portables in Colville Lake, and I'll be the first to admit I've never been Colville Lake but I've heard stories about how unacceptable the school is there. So we're spending money on portables but there's also a negative appropriation of $740,000 in here for I'm not sure exactly what for the Colville Lake school. So can I get some explanation as what's happening with this money in and money out for Colville Lake school? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the Colville Lake school renovation has been delayed somewhat and so as an interim solution, because the school right now is in quite a dire state, I understand that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment are looking to bring three portables in. Some of that work is getting done now, and that's the money that's reflected here. But unfortunately, the procurement process for these portables was somewhat delayed and so a large portion of those efforts is going to be moved into a future year. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. So the $740,000 that's been taken out, what was that originally going to be used for, then? Thanks.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, for the detail, perhaps I'll turn it to the deputy minister first and see if we have that detail available. Thank you.

Thank you. Deputy minister.

Thank you. Mr. Courtoreille.

Thank you, Mr. Courtoreille. Member for Frame Lake.

Okay, thanks, Madam Chair. So can we really get three portables for $203,000 up to Colville Lake? That seems to be a very small number to get three portables to Colville Lake; what's going on here. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the majority of the cost is in the current year, in the current draft capital plan that we have actually just been going through in the last couple of weeks. I don't have those total numbers in front of me, but it is significantly more than $203,000 to get portables up to Colville Lake. So, again, I don't have that in front of me. We've just gone through it here in the last couple of weeks, though. That's where the bulk of it is. If I do recall correctly, I think it's the site design work that needs -- there we are. So, yeah, the beginning of site design and some of the preparation so that when the portables do arrive, they can be put in. The total cost, I believe, Madam Chair, is approximately $1.7 million. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. So when do we actually expect to have some kind of an agreement with the community to actually build a new school? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, that's a level of detail I'd have to turn to the Department of ECE for, I think. I'm not sure if Minister Simpson's in a position to speak to that.

Thank you, Minister. Minister Simpson -- Minister of ECE.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I can't give a definitive date. We are approaching this project in a very unique way, and we're working with the community and we are on the community's timeline in many ways. We understand that there needs to be a new school just as they understand there needs to be a school. No one's trying to hold things up. But it's an unpredictable process because we've never been down this path before. So everyone is committed to ensuring we get the work done and get it done in a timely manner, but I don't have a date for the Member. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any further questions on this? Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Madam Chair, I'm not sure if the Minister can answer that, but this line of questioning has made me ask what will happen to the portables when the school is built, and is there a commitment to have them returned to the community? Thank you.

Sorry. Can you -- Member --

I just corrected myself and said "kept with the community." Thank you.

Thank you. Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, these portables will continue to be under the ownership of Education, Culture and Employment and no doubt will continue to see much use in the territory. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further questions. Member for Great Slave? Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022, Department of Education, Culture and Employment, capital investment expenditure, junior kindergarten to grade 12 school services, not previously authorized, negative $3,087,000. Does committee agree?

Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022, Department of Education, Culture and Employment, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, negative $3,087,000. Does committee agree?

Thank you. Committee, we will now consider the Department of Finance on page 8. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022, Department of Finance, capital investment expenditures, information systems shared services, not previously authorized, negative $6,200,000. Does committee agree? Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. So can I get an explanation as to why the mineral administration registry system is being moved out of this department, Finance, into ITI. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the MARS system has to be coordinated with what's happening on the front of the Mineral Resources Act Regulations. That work, of course, is happening over in ITI. The two are really dependant on one another. It is one of those occasions where the technical specifications required for MARS to be successful has to happen in conjunction with what's happening with the MRA regulations so that the one will reflect the other reasonably and that the timing of the two are complementary to one another. So it made, in that sense, the most sense to have the two under the one department and in the department that is leading the work. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I did ask some questions earlier in this sitting about as I -- well, okay. I'll just back up. We set up this ISS -- I'm not even going to get the name right, information shared services something or other, within Department of Finance to bring together all the computer IT folks so that there -- in all of those functions and staff were taken out of departments. There was 70 people moved as I remember into Department of Finance to do this work. And I just find this quite remarkable now that we're actually starting to dismantle that and take off this piece back to the Department of ITI. But that's just my observation.

But as I understood, this is where this government sees going towards map staking, and I'd asked the Minister before about when the public debate, the public engagement was going to happen around map staking. She'd indicated that it had already started and I said, well, I pay pretty close attention to this stuff and I've seen nothing about this. So I'm hoping that the Minister got a bit of an update from her department as to when the policy debate and discussion around map staking is going to start and, yeah, I'll leave to the Minister. Thanks.

Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, Madam Chair, I do have a lot of information about the Mineral Resources Act and MARS. Of course I didn't bring necessarily my ITI materials. I can say, Madam Chair, there's a lot that's expected to take place in early 2022 on a high level. I was hoping to give a little more detail here, although, as I say, I wasn't necessarily anticipating to be answering the ITI level at that -- at that detail. But right now where we're at is that the Indigenous -- the IGCS, the Indigenous Governance Council, is working at an officials level with officials from ITI on the Mineral Resources Act. That process is in accordance with the protocol that was developed earlier this year with IGC, IGCS, and so if there's been some delay from the Member's perspective, it's not blame, but it's just as a way of explanation that that process took a little longer to get solidified and clarified.

With that underway, the public engagement element of the Mineral Resources Act will be coming forward in 2022. I don't what month. I would say early in 2022, probably not January, but hopefully by February. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair, I appreciate that. I'm trying to avoid going into a lot of discussion about map staking, but I think I have to go there a bit.

Look, there's going to be winners and there's going to be losers when we go to map staking. The losers are going to be the small prospectors, people that make claim stakes, expediters, air charter operations, the claim stakers themselves. Those are going to be the kinds of people that are going to lose by going to map staking. And the ones that are going to win are the environment, quite frankly, because we still require that claimed posts, the trees have to be mowed down in between them. There will probably be a lighter amount of disturbance on the environment. But it gives an advantage to the large companies who can just go out and decide we're going to stake up a huge area of not even going on the ground. All they have to do is pay some fees.

So that's the kinds of questions you're going to have to deal with. As I say, I think there's going to be winners, there's going to be losers. And then, you know, how do we set the fee structure in a way that doesn't allow big companies just to go out there and tie up everything and never do any work, like under significant discovery licence where they don't have to do any work forever.

So there's a lot of issues in there about who's going to win, who's going to lose. And setting the fees at the right level so that you avoid people tying up land unnecessarily and all of the money that went into the claim staking, should that actually go to government as a way to prevent companies from tying up too much land, or is there a way to try to get that money to flow through into actual exploration work? And how do you adjust the fees in a way to make that happen?

So there's a big amount of policy discussion and debate that has to take place around this. It's not something like you'd just flip a switch and one day you go from claim staking to everybody doing it on a computer through map staking. So any ways, that's my claim, map staking 101.

Is the Minister aware of all of these issues, and is that the sort of thing that's going to be encompassed in the discussion to help set up this Mineral Administration Registry System? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. And I just want to remind Members that we are doing capital expenditures, not program operations and policies. So if you want to keep focused on the capital expenditures, thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I think the Member has well-articulated really the underlying reasons why this particular project moved from being something under ISSS over to the folks who are doing the Mineral Resources Act regulations. It is a complex area. It is an area where there are a number of things to be balanced and sensitivities to ensure that we are achieving the goals of the Mineral Resources Act to provide certainty and stability and clarity and to be a modern act that balances the kinds of -- potentially contentious issues that the Member has quite rightfully pointed out.

I'm mindful of time and don't want to necessarily utilize this as the opportunity to say it, but it's certainly remains my hope, Madam Chair, that the Mineral Resources Act regulations and the MARS system that goes with it are going to indeed be a modern system and an efficient system and one that will be looked at positively both -- well, by all the different parties who may be looking to the work that we're doing.

So happy to run another briefing on the Mineral Resources Act regulations and/or MARS and/or all of the things, Madam Chair, and perhaps get into more detail at that time. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, I know that we're supposed to be talking about the budget here but this is moving something that was in Department of Finance to ITI, and I just want to make sure that the policy debate and discussion that needs to take place around the use of this system is going to get due consideration from the department. So I'll leave it at that. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Member for Thebacha.

I just want to make a short observation on page 8 with number 4.

For the record, I think that the transfer of the records from the Mineral Administration and Registry System to Industry, Tourism and Investment is a good decision. I say that because going through the maze at shared services is sometimes overwhelming, and I think that the NWT should be open for business. We have to be open for business. If we're going to have economic recovery after this pandemic, we have to have an open business policy for business, because anything that trickles down from any of these affects everybody in the Northwest Territories, and I appreciate that it's going to Industry, Tourism and Investment which is less cumbersome. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member for Thebacha. And I'll take that as a comment. Any further questions or comments?

Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022, Department of Finance, capital investment expenditures, information system shared services, not previously authorized, negative $6,200,000. Does committee agree?

Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022, Department of Finance, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, negative $6,200,000. Does committee agree?

Thank you. Committee, we will now consider the Department of Health and Social Services on page 9. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022, Department of Health and Social Services, capital investment expenditures, health and social programs, not previously authorized, $21,361,000. Does committee agree?

Thank you. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022, Department of Health and Social Services, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, negative $21,361,000. Does committee agree?

Committee, we will now consider Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment on page 10. Supplementary Estimates, No. 2, Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment, capital investment expenditures, mineral and petroleum resources, not previously authorized, $1,200,000. Does committee agree?

Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022, Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment, capital investment expenditures, total department not previously authorized, $1,200,000. Does committee agree?

Committee, we will now consider the Department of Infrastructure on page 11.

Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2021-2022, Department of Infrastructure, capital investment expenditures, asset management, not previously authorized, negative $44,513,000. Does committee agree? Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Can anybody tell me was any work done or is any work going to be done in 2021-2022 with regard to the Frank Channel bridge? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.