Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Great Slave.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Would the Minister be willing to follow up in writing with committee on that? Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, Mr. Chair, assistant deputy Jenkins does indicate what we are told is that they're getting started this year, so I'll -- we'll go back and see if we can't get something more definitive from the partners that sit at that table, and then we'd be more than happy to follow up or at least give an update if I'm waiting on someone else for information. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Great Slave.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. Nothing further.

Thank you. Next on my list I have is the Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, my questions are around kind of the -- all three of the big kind of planning projects that we've got here. To be clear, the Taltson, Mackenzie Valley Highway, Slave Geologic Province.

So it appears that the fiscal responsibility policy does not require any kind of assessment of O and M implications for proposed capital projects and whether the government could even afford those costs going forward. So I guess I'm just kind of curious how this much -- how planning for building of this kind of -- this much infrastructure all at once fits within, you know, the Minister's -- finance Minister's perceptions of what the implications of the fiscal responsibility policy are? That's my first question.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, it's -- I'm always happy when someone is referencing the fiscal responsibility policy, but I don't know that that's -- that policy's really meant to guide the development of the fiscal strategy and the fiscal stewardship on the operations side yet not necessarily in the same way as it applies here, although I know that may be something to look at for the future into how they intersect one with the other. But as far as the three big projects, they are each at different stages and they do each have slightly different obviously sort of end goal benefits.

Fundamentally, all three are opportunities to see a catch-up in the scale of infrastructure that exists in the Northwest Territories, particularly in terms of transportation infrastructure. The Mackenzie Valley Highway at this point, as is spoken of quite frequently, is a critical corridor up the -- you know, up a part of Canada that is right now thoroughly underserviced in terms of the transportation network. It's already in EA. We are working very hard to make sure that there is no delay, that -- certainly from our end on that EA process and expect it out next year with then the ability to proceed according to what the board may dictate and move forward with a design and a procurement process -- or rather regulatory process and then design procurement. So that's where that one's at. It's at a very different point. With that in hand, we can go and get final dollars hopefully from the federal government to support its building.

The Taltson project's a little different in that we are but one member. That is being led by all of the Indigenous governments who are in the watershed region. The GNWT's one number of that group. That project will advance as a group. It's not expected to advance with the GNWT alone, and it certainly wouldn't advance without support from the federal government financially. But it is different, again, in that it's advancing step by step with that entire group, so multiple MOU partners sitting together. And it is on the side of the energy infrastructure needs.

And then last but not least, of course, Slave Geologic Province, Mr. Chair. Again, you know, noting again the complete lack of any roadways in this country connecting the south to the Arctic, and this is an opportunity to do so. The Nunavut government has reinvigorated their work on creating a report and hoping to see it connect down into our territory. But that is for this one off out of the three. But without continuing to make some progress to advance, we wind up in the situation we've been in for 30 years which is people talk about it, but nothing's actually studied and nothing's ready to go. So the funds we have here are really to -- for Taltson and -- or for -- rather for Slave Geologic gets to a point where we can make an actual decision where we know what the project would look like, where it would be, who would be interested, and who might contribute. But right now, without that, we just keep talking about the lack of infrastructure. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So yeah, I'm kind of curious in particular on -- to get a bit deeper into kind of O and M costs. So any of the projects will do, really. I mean, any of them have implications for that. So how do we propose affording to operate additional infrastructure like this? I mean, looking at our fiscal outlook, looking at the infrastructure we've got, it seems like we're having a very difficult time kind of affording what we've already got. So who are we envisioning is going to pay for the operations? Are we anticipating developing cost sharing agreements with other governments? How are we -- how are we proposing that this is going to be something that we can even afford? Because getting capital money is one thing but operations and maintenance, of course, is going to be enormous for any of these large projects. So what's our planning around that? Like, how are we ensuring that what we're doing is realistic and within the bounds of what the territory can afford to do?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the GNWT is having significant challenges maintaining its operations. We are struggling in the health care system obviously with the health authorities running a fairly significant deficit that continues to grow, and struggling in the energy sector right now because of the lack of interconnectivity between our systems and the tremendous costs that continue to build up because of the reliance on diesel and the volatility of fuel. But our fiscal challenges aren't necessarily being driven by operations and maintenance on the highways. Those costs are going up. I mean, I certainly am seeing it on the -- you know, in the Tlicho with the winter roads, the winter roads going up. The Sahtu is likely to see increases. But that is not what keeps the finance Minister up at night. The situations facing us with -- in terms of the health authority budgets is of a bigger concern, of the energy sector is a bigger concern. But operations on highways and roads, again quite frankly, Mr. Chair, their costs are not insignificant, the building costs are not insignificant, but the costs of not having transportation and being in a situation where I can't resupply communities in fuel services division, where we can't get supplies in when there's an evacuation in Yellowknife for instance, those costs are also significant. So we do -- I do want, you know, again emphasize estimates are made before a construction decision is made as to what the total might be. And I'll use an example of the TASR where they've entered into a P3 project. That TASR project has a set amount that we can plan for every year. There's an amount in a sinking fund that we use to pay for the operations and maintenance of that highway that goes to the Tlicho government who are the third party. That kind of work is certainly being contemplated for these other projects. Again, Taltson in particular, it's going to be a cooperative -- cooperation project. The next stage is to get an entity that these Indigenous governments can be part of. That may well be where the business case for Mackenzie Valley Highway or Slave Geologic end up, but I don't have that information yet. That's the next step for Mackenzie Valley Highway, quite frankly, is to have that conversation. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And so, you know, I appreciate that answer from the Minister. I'm very glad that they are considering the O and M for these. You know, that does bring me some comfort.

So I want to speak a little bit -- I mean, we heard from the ECE Minister just today detail the magnitude of costs for infrastructure for the college, for example. And of course, there's only so much federal money we can seek. The same can be said for housing, which MLAs have been clear is a priority. And so one of the problems we have is we can only seek so much federal funding. We can only receive so much federal funding. So how are we able to effectively action our priorities when we're simultaneously trying to advance multiple projects that are outside the possibility of affordability for the territory to build and also trying to advance what I might describe as competing priorities. So help me understand how it all makes sense. How are we going to effectively -- because, I mean, this has been one of the conversations we've been having over and over and again in the House, you know, during this budget session is, you know, how do we effectively action our priorities? And if all of our planning and staff time and federal funding is going towards other projects, of course the opportunity costs is that we're losing out on things that we also have prioritized. So I'm trying to understand how to make sense of all this and make sense of the -- you know, the Minister's gotten up, and with a very somber expression, spoken about dire financial outlook but we seem to be planning as if our fiscal outlook is positively incredible. So, Mr. Chair, if the Minister could kind of comment on that statement, I'd appreciate it.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope I don't just have 40 seconds. That's a big one. Mr. Chair, at this point these three projects do have federal funding to get them to that point where there's an understanding that -- you know, the environmental assessment work wouldn't necessarily become stale if it doesn't happen to move forward with funding in the immediate year after. It goes through still a permitting process. And even with the permits in hand, I can think of a mining project here in the territory that's been sitting fully permitted ready to go trying to get funding sorted. They are not -- it doesn't go stale. It doesn't go bad. Obviously at some point it becomes not a tangible priority. But having those permits in hand doesn't mean that we're under the clock or under the gun to have it funded the next year. It certainly gives the opportunity to go and have a conversation. It's not possible to go to Ottawa and say, will you fund a project that I haven't -- I'll put through in EA that I haven't got a regulatory permit for that I'm not really sure where I'm going to put it, but can you fund it. So that -- these three are all at different phrases of that kind of planning and preparation so that we can go with a meaningful business case with permits in hand to say we're ready, it's shovel ready, let's move forward.

In terms of balancing different priorities, Mr. Chair, this is certainly a bigger question and probably one better placed to the Premier in the sense that it applies -- we would be looking to the federal engagement strategy that is a whole of government strategy and a whole of Cabinet strategy that does look to be founded upon the priorities of the 20th Assembly and the mandate that's developed to deliver upon that.

To date, Mr. Chair, we -- obviously the housing funding that we have is, you know, outside the wheelhouse of what I have in front of me to speak to today. But it comes from different sources in the federal system as well, so we want to be able to be in a position to maximize what is coming in the territory from every single federal funding source. Canada Health, you know -- or sorry, the -- I'm getting the acronym wrong. They've changed the federal government's department of late but it's now housing, infrastructure, and communities. There's a very specific pot of money and it's very large, and we want a lot of it to come here. But there's a point that we might need to make too about also making sure that we have other things that are moving forward. So we've been fortunate to date. There is a lot of money that's come into the housing corporation, a lot of money has come into Indigenous governments for housing, and we've still been able to advance these projects.

So with all of that said, Mr. Chair, that's the goal, is to continue to achieve that kind of success where things can each continue to move at slightly different stages which allows that money to flow out. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker -- sorry, Mr. Chair. It's been a long day.

I wanted to start just picking up the conversation first with Taltson pre-construction planning. I understand that for now we have 100 percent federal funding to continue with the planning, and I understand the GNWT is only one partner at the table; however, I think it's time for us to start considering what the GNWT's own portion of the future investment would need to be and to contemplate -- in a public way, to have those numbers out there publicly and to have the discussion as to whether that GNWT portion of the investment, both in terms of capital and ongoing O and M, is realistic, is palatable for people. And so I ask the Minister today would she make public what is estimated to be the cost to the GNWT of a Taltson project starting with phase one. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, so typically a large project like that, the planning estimates would come through the -- or sorry, this capital planning process if it gets to that stage. But, Mr. Chair, let me take a slightly different approach with this one which is to say, again, it is an MOU-based approach. And I have been very clear with the partners when I sit at that table that it is an MOU approach, that it is not a GNWT only project; it is meant to advance as a group. And, again, our next step was to try to create -- there's been a decision on a preferred route. There's been a lot of discussion about how GNWT can support those partners with resolving their legacy issues and a change in terms of maybe having a stronger role there because it hasn't been resolved to date. And then the next stage would be to try to create a -- what we call project company or project co which can be the entity that actually advances the project, becomes the proponent. So I'd like to propose that I go back and make a commitment that I'll go back to that group, to the steering committee, and discuss how we can do better to maybe socialize some of the numbers. I think other members of that group are also looking to be able to engage their membership so that everyone is aware as to what the kind of project is at scale. So, again, I do want to go back to them, but I'm going to make a commitment that I'm going to do that and see if we can all get the information out so that GNWT, public, but also members who are members of those groups can benefit from that. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do think that that is an important step, so I appreciate the Minister taking that back to the working group.

I want to turn now to the Slave Geological Province corridor planning. So the Minister mentioned that this one is actually only 75 percent federal funding. Can the Minister explain to us how much of the GNWT's own money we're using for the planning, both this year and over the course of the -- is it four or five years that we have federal funding; how much is the GNWT spending of our own money on this? Thank you.