Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the totality of this, of what is planned to do all of the planning, is a $40 million project. That is cost shared 75/25 federal to GNWT. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife North.

Okay, so that would amount to $10 million of GNWT funding just for planning, which I would consider a very significant amount of money for something we're not even sure is a good idea.

In terms of this project's priority ranking, I know that all the projects go through the planning process. We see at the back of our books that it has to be evaluated according to impact, severity of impact, and urgency in mitigation. Can the Minister share with us how this project was rated in terms of the urgency of the project, the severity of the impact, and also mitigation, so what other options could there be instead of this project; how were those rated in terms of priority? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, this project initially came to -- into play for the GNWT before my time even in this House. And so its initial conception did not go through the same exact processes that we have now put into place today. But understanding the kinds of potential outcomes -- and I'm just trying to get to the substantiation sheet where there's a macroeconomic analysis lens that has since been applied to the project, due to the time, to try and determine what some of the benefits would be. Sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm just looking through -- oh, Mr. Chair, look, it's coming right at me now.

So -- yes, so as I said, initially when it came through the GNWT's process back in 2018-ish, or perhaps earlier than that, did not necessarily have the same rigor that we're applying now. But it has continued to go through the process, and it is being -- the same lenses are being applied now. So, for example, the macroeconomic lens considerations that every project does go through has economic effects estimated as being growth in terms of output in jobs over 30 years. Somewhere between 17,000 to 33,000 in gross sort of outputs, and then 20,000 to 40,000 in jobs. And the idea there, of course, is trying to analyze what the potential impacts would be over that period of time for having access to this region in a way that we do not currently.

Specific employment opportunities in terms of person positions, somewhere between 680 and 1,400 per year rather than over 30, a little bit of an easier number to grasp, Mr. Chair. And showing actually benefits that could be realized not only in the Northwest Territories but Canada which would be important for seeking investment from the federal government. I mean and, again, going on in this particular lens with the different benefits that it could have.

So, you know, Mr. Chair, there's -- the other assessments are done. I'm not sure -- again, I'm conscious of the time so I'm going to stop there, Mr. Chair. But if there's a specific item that's from the lens or the risk analysis that the Member wants me to speak to, I'm happy to do that.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So my understanding was that it already had been rated in terms of priorities under those categories that I mentioned, but if it has not, then I would strongly urge this government to do those ratings and then to be able to compare to other projects that we're considering and in terms of, you know, by the same apples to apples what, you know -- what is the severity of how this would impact people if we don't do it, how urgent is this. And then in particular, I think this is underrated, the question of mitigation, what else could we do instead? Is this the only possible option to achieve those outcomes? Is this the only possible way we could get any of those jobs, or are there other possible solutions we could consider that could cost less money and put less of a burden on our fiscal situation here?

So I guess I'll request from the Minister that she come back to us for this project with an explanation of how this project is rated in terms of those categories of priority with a bit of explanation for each as to why the government might feel that it is urgent or that there's nothing else possibly that could achieve the ends sought. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, Mr. Chair, first, I guess I misunderstood. So the priority -- the primary criteria rating has been done here. It did get a score B -- B, A, A, and A which is for direct impacts, severity of impacts, and urgency mitigation. Sorry, I apologize. When the project was initially began and the funding was secured from the federal government to get to the regulatory proceedings, back then there was not this rigor. It is going through that process now. But it was just the idea of a comparison when we started, it wouldn't have had that because that wasn't being applied the way it is today. So I am sorry if I wasn't clear that it is going through that process now.

But in addition to that, so if we were to stop, to date we've incurred $4.8 million only to date, and it's really the next stage, and the project went sort of on a bit of a pause when the regional economic assessment was requested to see how we can best fit in the work that's happening on the one to the other. Obviously if we are to walk away from the 75/25, then the federal government would not be paying any of the 75 so we would be on the hook for whatever amounts have been incurred to date. Again, that's not a -- well, it's $4.8 million, Mr. Chair, so it is what it is but we would then be, you know, again, losing that opportunity with the 75/25. So, you know, other opportunities, what else can we do?

Mr. Chair, that's, again, pretty big question that I'm a bit hesitant to get into today sitting here on -- with the capital budget. How do we save the economy of the Northwest Territories is kind of the question and I, again, don't know that I'm in a position to try to answer that without running the clock, so I will stop. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next on my list I have is the Member for Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as this is a very lively discussion around these infrastructure projects, can the Minister indicate if these, Taltson, Slave Geological Province Road, Mackenzie Valley Highway, if they're revenue generating projects. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, Taltson is contemplated to be revenue generating. Not necessarily in huge dollars but it depends. The issue is we are dependent or expecting that there would be industrial load added by having the Taltson construction. So, for instance, even right now with the overhaul that is expected to hopefully be fully absorbed, that excess energy would be fully absorbed by the Pine Point line. To do the expansion, it certainly links south and north and a significant number of communities. But to be revenue generating depends on there being at least another one, if not two, and hopefully three, new industrial projects that are added to it. There are a number of prospects that could line up well in their timing, whether it's lithium here in the North Slave, whether it was gold projects in the North Slave or otherwise, and that would make it revenue generating.

The Slave Geologic Province is also anticipated that if it were to get to a point of going forward, could also be revenue generating from a number of different aspects. One being as a toll road into a mine rich -- mining, mineral resource rich area and/or as an access point to the Grays Bay Port. So, again, those are pretty far out considerations. We're not at a point of doing a business case, but those would be the kinds of considerations.

As for the Mackenzie Valley Highway, Mr. Chair, right now that business case is a next major step that is to be had. I don't know that that's been necessarily billed as the priority being about revenue generation as opposed to about fundamental interconnectedness for the territory. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the Dempster Highway, of course the O and M costs for that are shared between the Yukon -- the Government of the Yukon and the Government of the Northwest Territories. Is it possible that the Slave Geological Province, which would link to Grays Bay cross interprovincial borders or interterritorial borders, could a similar agreement -- I mean, this is a hypothetical but I hope the Minister will indulge me, but given we've had success, we know what that relationship looks like, if a similar relationship were struck with Nunavut on the Slave Geological -- O and M for the Slave Geological Province. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I can say there's certainly some -- as I mentioned, some renewed interest from Nunavut now organized to have a bit of their own project company that's out to develop and become a proponent to potentially on the Grays Bay Port, and they have reached out to the GNWT to see where we're at on Slave Geologic Province. They're turning their mind to it. I'd actually point the Member also south of our border, and Alberta is also showed a lot of interest. I think they are seeing perhaps less fossil fuel dependent future for themselves as well and are looking at where they can find new opportunities, and they are also showing a lot of interest. So this may be a corridor that has inputs from other jurisdictions. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, that is very positive. And I know most of northern Alberta is on very heavy fossil fuels so creating a pressure valve for them would probably be in their interest. Also the Grays Bay Port project could be a new link for sealift into the Northwest Territories. Is that something the Minister has looked at as well, to lower cost of living in the Northwest Territories by providing sealift from, say, the port of Montreal rather than trucking everything in with heavy trucks? Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, there was a lot of nodding at this table when the question was posed. So as far as being cognizant of the possibility that this could create another way in which to bring assets and supplies in, you know, yes, the answer is yes. As far as it -- my understanding, there was a fairly old dated business case for the Slave Geological Province that is in rather dire need of update. We're not, again, at that stage yet. But that -- yes, again, the short answer is that definitely creates the potential for a corridor. I mean, you know, as I said earlier, really, if projects don't move forward to the place where they are studied and ready -- I'm cognizant these are expensive things to move forward on but if you don't have the information, you don't have the knowledge, you haven't done the studies, you haven't done your environmental assessment, you cannot make a construction decision, and you cannot advance the project. And that's, really, what these -- that's the stage that these ones are still at. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the Minister spoke of, you know, a significant number of jobs, probably hundreds, thousands potentially, with all three of these projects, millions of dollars in opportunity, perhaps billions if it leads to an explosion of exploration activities and development in a mineral rich area that would be opened up through Slave Geological Province, for example. We know the Mackenzie Valley Highway is in -- or is a critical need for the territory with the effects of climate change harming marine resupply up the Mackenzie Valley -- or the Mackenzie River. And, of course, Taltson is the key to the government's clean energy future. So it seems to me that all the three projects here are almost nation building projects that have -- that can, you know, in terms of bang-for-your-buck investments, these are very well thought out. These have had a lot of time and attention by very smart people who work for our government and have been shepherding these over years, by very capable Ministers as well, and I see no reason why we should be picking and choosing winners and losers here. There isn't a limited cap of political capital you can take to the well in Ottawa. If you have a willing partner in the federal government, I'm sure we could get a lot of these things funded, especially if they're northern minded and want to do some nation building. I can only think if the Mackenzie Valley pipeline had gone a different way, the kind of economic activity that could have been opened up in the Northwest Territories, the kind of major infrastructure that would have come in as well, would have been transformative. We might not be in a have-not region of the country with that -- with something that opened up the region and resource development as well and enriched everyone down that transportation corridor. And when I think of something like the Slave Geological Province, that's what I think it could be. I think of the benefits that could go to the Akaitcho, to the Tlicho, to Nunavut groups, to people in the Northwest Territories generally. And if there's opportunities for sealift, if there's opportunities for marine supply, that's -- that could be a game changer too. You know, these are creative solutions to the infrastructure deficit we have. I know the Minister's very passionate about this, and I just wanted to indicate I very much lend my support to these projects. And it is a bit disappointing that, you know, we have -- oftentimes we are very critical, and Members of this committee are for critical of these projects, when I think we should be embracing them fully and finding ways to make them happen instead of, again, picking winners and losers. So the Minister doesn't have to comment, but I think it's important that we continue to prioritize these projects as a government and we get them done as soon as possible because we don't want to be looking back 60 years later at what could have been, at another Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, the Member from Range Lake. Is there any other Members that want to add to the discussion on this item? Seeing no hands, I'm going to continue on.

Department of Infrastructure, programs and services, infrastructure investment, 19 million -- sorry? Sorry, colleagues.

Department of Infrastructure, energy and strategic initiatives, infrastructure investment, $71,500,000. Does the committee agree?