Thank you. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2024-2025; Department of Infrastructure, capital investment expenditures, programs and services, not previously authorized, negative $25,170,000. Are there any questions? Seeing no further questions. I'll continue on.

Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2024-2025; Department of Infrastructure, capital investment expenditures, programs and services, not previously authorized, negative $25,170,000. Does the committee agree?

Thank you. Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2024-2025; Department of Infrastructure, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, negative $13,442,000. Does the committee agree?

Please turn to page 15.

Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2024-2025; Department of Justice, capital investment expenditures, corrections, not previously authorized, $808,000. Are there any questions? I'm going to go to the Member from Range Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The security and intercom system upgrade, Fort Smith, transfer van replacement, Fort Smith, which facilities are those lines -- or which facility in Fort Smith is this going to impact? Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So it is showing as being aligned to the Fort Smith correctional complex, which obviously does house both the men's and women's facility, and the one latter -- or the men's facility being one which is now targeted for part of a reduction and to be moving forward towards hopefully a shift into a wellness facility of some fashion, subject to discussions with the community and the vision that they may have for it. So obviously there may be changes that are coming to where this project will go in a capital project -- where the capital project will go in the next fiscal year. Thank you.

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

Just to clarify, so this money that's in this supp, this is going to -- are these improvements for the men's side of the facility, or does it work that way? So just the entire facility, or are we able to drill down into that? Because it seems odd that we're going to spend $398,000 and -- well, $398,000 on a facility that we're planning on shuttering. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, this is -- well, so part of this was with respect to the radio system -- I'll start with that -- the radio system at the men's facility is older, it did not integrate with the women's facility. So at the time of preparing, not knowing of course, what may or may not come of the proposals that are a part of Operations Budget 2024, subject to those approvals, if the facility in Fort Smith remained operational and remained opened in its complete state, they would require security upgrades because the current facility does not meet its requirements. Certainly, if this -- if the decision or the proposal to close the men's facility in Fort Smith goes forward, that will certainly impact whether or to what extent all of this funding is required.

The last comment on that, there was two phases to the programs -- or to this proposed project so the carryover, again, is pending the final decision on the 2024-2025 Main Estimates but we, timing being what it is, have to bring forward the supplementary requests here for another supplementary appropriation on the infrastructure budget, which was approved back in October. But, yes, again, obviously if there is, in fact, the closure of the men's facility that goes forward and a change in the approach and to how that might get used going forward, well then, we'd be certainly likely to save some money since the requirements are hopefully not as much. I mean, I'm saying this with hopefullies because I don't know the final will or desire of the community or the leadership, only that engagement with them has begun to see what the vision might be and to then be able to align the Government of the Northwest Territories with that vision. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as the Premier pointed out when we reviewed Justice, there is no wellness centre in this -- sorry, in the other document we'll be reviewing, but there is no wellness centre on the books. There's an idea of a wellness centre. It is uncosted. It is unplanned. It is a conversation starter. So I don't think we should be talking about how we're going to use this appropriation to support any other infrastructure projects when none of them are even in the planning stage. And furthermore, I just want to point out, I guess for the record, is last week the Premier hadn't engaged in discussions with the community on the future post-this-facility or the plan to close it, so this is -- I'm glad these things are happening now, but it would have been nice to see them happen beforehand.

What -- if we -- if this supplementary appropriation is approved and the facility goes away, what happens to this? Like, how -- where will this money go? Will it just be reallocated to different projects? Because I'm not really comfortable giving the department a slush fund around this capital that's untied to a specific project. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I believe what the Premier had talked about last week was conversations that began in part with Minister Macdonald who also happens to be the MLA from the region. And, yes, the idea of shifting from having a correctional facility to having a wellness facility at this time is uncosted and unplanned because it's part of a proposed budget. Just as one might want to see changes in upgrades or changes to different departments' budgets, which have certainly been the discussion on the floor of this House, both in COW and otherwise, increasing budgets without costing and without planning can be done but then it's done without costing and it's done without planning. So if we want to make changes, then sometimes that's the situation that we find ourselves in. In this particular instance, we have a facility. We understand what it is, we understand that it is unused. We know that there is a number of well-trained staff in the community who have an area of expertise that can hopefully allow them to align themselves with some new training that would then serve the community. And we know that there's a great ask for a wellness facility, frankly, in many regions across the Northwest Territories but certainly not the least of which would be the South Slave. So the proposal at this time is unplanned and uncosted. It will likely involve some sort of infrastructure budget. Whether this can be moved or not, I suspect not, and the reason for that is it is probably restricted funding, meaning it will not be able to be utilized for anything that it is not assigned for. In this case, it is for correctional upgrades for the intercom system for a project that was undertaken that began in the last Assembly -- sorry, that began in the last fiscal year and it moved forward to now. It's being carried forward because it wasn't completed. Carry forwards require that there be projects either already in progress or already under contract and, in this case, it's in progress and I believe under contract and therefore does need to get carried forward, or at least that's proposed. Thank you.

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

Yes, thank you. Okay, well that resolves the expenditure problem. But I think -- I just really want to drill down on this thing that there is not a proposal for a wellness plan. It's not in the pre -- there's not a preplanning thing. It's not being proposed in the budget. It's included in the speech, and it's -- and that's it. So I think it's unfair to characterize this as, like, if we -- you know, if the budget gets approved, then the wellness centre moves ahead, and we transfer the jobs in Smith. Correctional officers are not social workers. They're not addictions and treatment workers as well. So there's a whole lot that needs to go into this if that budget's approved. And I think we need to be honest about how we're proceeding with this closure, and I think promising a facility that's not on the books, there's no budget attached, that's just a conversation starter, is unfair to those employees and unfair to the community of Smith. If there's a real plan, I invite the Minister and the Cabinet to bring it forward, and we'll gladly give that full consideration. Let's stop talking about something that doesn't exist. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I'll take that as a comment. I'm going to continue on. Is there any further questions? I'm going to go to Yellowknife Centre.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I want to take a different approach with this. And so if I remember correctly, there was a correction facility built in Inuvik even when -- and it was targeted for youth, in other words. And it might have been a good project from its inception, so the genesis of the project is, hey, let's provide some stuff in Inuvik. And that's okay, and that's good. But then if I remember correctly -- again, I'm stressing if I remember it -- the Youth Justice Act changed and the facility at the time was called Arctic Tern. So they marched ahead even though they knew Arctic Tern would be obsolete by the time they cut the ribbon, that the Act had changed. And this is the cynicism the general public has with their politicians and their governments which is even when we know things are changing -- this is nothing to do with the merits of the project at the time. They're probably very valuable. But to say we have a contract or we got some federal money and we're going to do this anyway even though we know it becomes obsolete and don't worry, we'll turn it into something, is what people get frustrated by and they think of it as waste.

Now, I don't want to characterize waste in any way with the support system that may have been implied or initiated at this facility because when the initial proposal was consented upon to move forward, it probably was seen of great value and necessary. And I think that that merits may stand and speak for themselves. But that said, the government has initiated a process to close this facility and to have the appearance of buying assets and upgrades to a facility that's closing, I think kind of meets that definition of why the public is frustrated, or gets frustrated.

Now, I'm not a contract expert but I do understand enough, like most people, that when you have something in writing that, you know, there's a commitment. But I would feel very uncomfortable knowing that we've committed to a project that doesn't have a purpose. To buy a van to sit there in the driveway in hopes that one day, I would ask -- you know, I would be looking -- I'll have some questions for the Minister in a second but, you know, I would ask the question outloud saying is there a way we can defer this purchase for a more appropriate one? Maybe somebody else needs the van. Maybe it could go to some of the assets that burnt in Enterprise. I don't know what the right answer is. I'm not saying it's that easy, and I understand that. I'm just trying to say is we need to think out of the box on these things.

Does the intercom system still need its urgency? In other words, is it cheaper to pay to get out than to keep paying and have nothing in the end that who knows what'll happen? And I think that's the frustration here. It's not about it's going to Fort Smith. That is not the issue whatsoever. It's just we don't know where it's ever going to go. And if it's going to be sitting there in a shuttered facility, that's the frustration the public would have for us knowing that.

Now, as my good colleague for Range Lake had said, you know, we don't have anything in writing. And I'm grateful for an open discussion and dialogue with the community about how we can maybe find our way through this fog, and I think that's a fantastic thing. I mean, I believe in community employment, and we should inspire opportunities every chance we get. But to be telling the people of Fort Smith, specifically to tell the people of the correctional centre, that don't worry, we'll make you counsellors, it's really hard to imagine it's that simple. And even if it was that simple, they'll be sitting a long time before that actually happens. And, you know, no one is in -- no one in this room, frankly -- and I'll stress it again -- there's not a single person in this room that can tell me that the expertise lie in the sense that we'll turn guards to counsellors and we'll turn cinder blocks into healing rooms very easily. I mean, look at the trouble we're having in Fort Smith already with respect to an old residential school experience and people demand the symbolism of that to be torn down. The symbolism. I am in no position to say that that's wrong, but I can tell you it bothers people and they need to be heard.

Even the symbolism of a jail now being a place for healing causes me some, as they call it a Gordian knot, a very complex way of thinking through this thing. I don't know if you can unthread that knot. It's just difficult.

So now to my question to the Minister -- and I appreciate everyone listening to this, by the way, but it's important to think of it this way -- is there any way to pause this expenditure until we have some clarity? And it's not about spending money in Fort Smith. I want to make sure the good Member for Thebacha understands that. I want the good Member for Thebacha to understand that we're sympathetic, and we want to help you find ways to stimulate the community; there's not an issue there whatsoever. But spending money in a facility that we know, openly, is not going to be used is the challenge. So is there a way to the finance Minister to pause the actual purchasing or furthering of any contract until we really do have a plan in place that we know and understand and we're buying into? Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, with respect to the Inuvik facility, it is not my understanding that there was a change to the Act, but rather a challenge with terms of the actual structure of the building itself and challenges in terms of staffing it.

With respect to other facilities that remain underutilized, the Trailcross facility in Fort Smith is also underutilized, and the community is looking at an opportunity to have that rendered as a surplus. So that is also a facility that comes from a correctional background, but the community is actively already engaged in what they can do to possibly have an opportunity to see that declared as surplus by the department and then sold to the community.

Similar conversation happening in Fort Res. There is a facility, there's an asset, there is a structure there that the community's engaged in active conversations as to whether it can be declared a surplus.

We are in a situation, Mr. Chair, where the Government of the Northwest Territories has very limited sources of incoming revenue and therefore makes it difficult to build big things that cost lots of money as we have gone through this supplementary appropriation requesting lots of money to build big things but, Mr. Chair, that leaves us with trying to find ways to be bold and creative as we have been ever so clearly directed over the last few weeks. So we come forward, and we have to let our staff know in advance, of course, when there's a change of the magnitude of closing a correctional facility, but this is not a situation where we had months, let alone years, in order to plan that transition. What we have identified is there's a facility where there is a significant underutilization of government asset, of government resources, and we've targeted, therefore, a closure, but doing so in the context of hearing repeatedly the need, for years hearing the need, for some sort of wellness facility or wellness sort of institution.

So there's, over the last few years, significant dollars have been incurred, largely incurred in prior years, to a security upgrade for an existing asset only to now to determine that, in fact, this is not the best use of dollars going forward. It is not the best use of public funds going forward to maintain this. And so what we are doing instead is saying, look, we're going to close this facility but work with the community having heard so clearly that we should actually be using public dollars in a better way. It is, in fact, frustrating when there's additions being proposed or suggested at the last minute in significant sums in a way that is unplanned and uncosted. This is not -- what we are doing is taking money out by closing the facility, not adding significant dollars in, but completing a project that was already there. The hope is that because we have invested money into this community, into this facility, and into the staff that are there, that when we say we are going to close it because it is a bad use of public dollars to keep it open, we're not just going to walk away from it, we're not just going to walk away from the staff, we're going to find a way forward with the community to actually turn this into something useful. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to create a fight on this one. Maybe I'm hearing a tone or not. I'm not. I'm just saying that is there a way to pause this investment knowing that -- I don't have the exact dates, Mr. Chairman, but I'm going to say knowing in three months that, you know, people will no longer be there. If it needs the money, then pause it, and reinvest the money. I mean, it's just that's the point I'm making. I didn't say delete it. I just seen -- this is what people see as frustrating about money. I mean, if I did say that, that's not what I was trying to imply. I was trying to imply let's just pause the expenditure specific to this knowing that no one's going to be there in a little while.

As far as the community wishing for assets, I mean, if it's community-led initiative and they want something declared surplus, which is an area I didn't want to get into, but as time runs out I'm just going to say I'll let them lead their own initiatives as they describe what's good for their community, so I want to stay out of that specifically.

So as I wrap up, Mr. Chairman, with no time left on the clock, I'm just going to say that was particularly my issue about could we defer the money for short-term until we know where we're going. Thank you.