Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly can't speak to the practices or policies of Naka Power. I can say with respect to, again, you know, if folks are having to make changes to their own home renovations, you know, that's not necessarily something that we would be in a position to subsidize. There are certainly going to be some distribution challenges. If people are trying to get an EV charging station in their home because you have to go and -- from different step downs of power but, you know, again, how to best support that, our response has been to make available EV charging stations in communities from here - Behchoko, Fort Providence, Enterprise, Hay River, Fort Smith - and then at the junction as well. If folks are making decisions for their own home needs or home use, again, that's, at this point, not necessarily the focus or the thrust of subsidization with public dollars. But as stations are becoming available in those communities and along the highway, hopefully with greater command comes a reduction in the costs. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for the Sahtu.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I'm glad there's some willingness to reinstate the community access program. I've seen firsthand a lot of growth in that area. And for me, coming from and going to small communities, it's really comforting to see the value on TPR. So TPR would be your taxpayers return of public funds. So when I see it in the book here and I go out to the community and I see it out there, okay, it's happening. And it makes me feel good that the government is doing something right by providing meaningful benefits.

And looking at the business plan, the business plan on page 175 in our mandate is compliant to, say, building relationships with Indigenous groups and partners on major projects. And when I see some of these -- let's call it the in-value capital projects. So when I go downtown Tulita and I look at the solar panel and I think of the millions of dollars that was spent on this piece of infrastructure in terms of the piling put in there and the gravel hauled there and the solar panel itself, the mounting stations, and I wonder are we seeing a return on that? Are we seeing some sort of benefit? If we can measure the benefits compared to maximizing other programs that this money can go towards.

So when I look at the -- keeping that in mind, I just hope that priority is given to applications as we move throughout the year on this fiscal budget that more meaningful programs would be looked at favourably, not just another capital asset that ain't going to prove any benefits. We can say okay, yes, it is providing a benefit, there's cost reductions on the energy rates going to the clients of Tulita. Then I can say, yes, it's working. But I yet have to hear of any benefits of that capital cost. Maybe that money could be better directed to other energy saving initiatives, the Arctic Energy Alliance subsidizing NWT energy efficient projects.

Are there any carryovers from the whole area of the bilateral agreements that exist today into this budget? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member for the Sahtu. Minister of Infrastructure.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just want to make sure I was clear. Carryovers reflected on capital projects in here? There wouldn't be. This would be only the operations. So there wouldn't be any carryovers reflected here. I'll just stop there. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for the Sahtu.

Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. I'll use one example. The 18th Assembly signed a bilateral agreement with the federal government for $570 million payable over ten years. Is that reflected -- or I guess, first of all, is there any money left in that bilateral agreement? If so, is it going to be identified and entered into these statements? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member for the Sahtu. Minister of Infrastructure.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So Madam Chair, that sounds to me like that is likely in relation to Mackenzie Valley Highway or one of the associated projects, Great Bear River Bridge for instance. So if that is the case, then that would not be reflected in -- certainly not in this particular instance. Or on this particular page, sorry. It would -- yeah, it would come in under the capital planning process for any -- any of the large-scale funding for large scale capital projects will be in there. The smaller scale programs that are here aren't subject to the same sort of carryover process. They typically are one year at a time funded. And, I mean, that was sometimes some of the challenges of those small-scale projects is still getting the permitting in place and to get them done in a year. But yes, thank you.

Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for the Sahtu.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe I'll rephrase that. As I mentioned, there was -- I'm just using that one example. There are several bilateral agreements that I'm -- I'm still doing my research, but it's in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion that exists with these bilaterals. I don't know whether it's five bilateral agreements specific to the target of the application applied for. In this case, I'm just using the 570 bilateral payable over ten years. That'll be $55 million -- or $57 million per year. And that was signed in 2018, I believe, or 2019. So there should be some existing capital in these bilaterals, but I have no idea how many bilateral agreements exist to this day. I've requested that information to try to comprehend and see how we are going to position ourself moving forward. So can the Minister tell me how many bilateral agreements are out there between the federal government and the territorial government? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member for the Sahtu. Infrastructure Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Madam Chair, there's -- there are quite a number of capital funding federal pots that exist right now that we are part of. The Disaster Mitigation Adaption Fund is one. Investing in Canada Infrastructure Project, people I think hear us sometimes say ICIP. That's a big one. And that, I think, may be the one that the Member was -- has the numbers there for 570. I think it's actually closer to 580, but that's Canada's portion. And that is right now funding quite a large number of projects, including projects in the Sahtu region, as well as the National Trade Corridors Fund. That's another big one. And finally, although this one, I think, is coming to a close soon, the New Building Canada Plan.There's certainly some new programs that are coming online as well. So REACH, for instance, is an area with respect to transmission technology and transmission line work that is coming in. That's a new one that we now are participating with the federal government on for electricity transmission. Those are all the ones that I have in front of me. If I've missed any, I would certainly be happy to get back to the Members. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for the Sahtu.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to the Minister for that. I think if we can work in collaboration with each other, we can -- or everybody in the Assembly. If we can put our heads together, I think we can face the challenges that are out there. It's so significant, it's unbelievable. I'm actually scared personally for some of the communities on the resupply. As we all know on the publications through social media and, in reality, going to Fort Providence and witnessing the low waters. And I'm afraid that we still have anticipation on resupplying Fort Good Hope, but I'm not confident that our ships will pass Little Chicago.

Little Chicago is swamped with sandbars, and one of the ships stopped there or got stuck last year. So I don't think we can afford to jeopardize our fuel and cargo resupply with the assumption that we are still going to go on that river. So I think we should prepare financially for the worst, and if this includes looking at the existing bilateral agreements that exist and incorporating into the budget to support these programs and pursue the intent and terms and conditions of the bilateral agreement itself, I think we can be further ahead in accomplishing both reductions and capitalization from existing agreements. So I point that out now, and I'll probably have further questions in other areas. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member for the Sahtu. There was no question there. I didn't hear any question there. So unless the Minister wants to respond.

Madam Chair, just to note, I think I realize now. When there's -- these large funding pots, when they are already committed to capital projects, they'll show up in the capital budget. Sometimes you'll see them coming in under the operations budget but not when they're already tied to the capital projects. And but still happy to draw that distinction here. It's a -- people don't necessarily -- wouldn't -- outside this Assembly wouldn't understand the division, so I appreciate the opportunity to clarify that. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So on page 7 -- or sorry, 272 -- I need new glasses -- the line item for Arctic Energy Alliance, can you confirm that's a transfer for their O and M operating budget? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member. Minister of Infrastructure.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a contribution agreement with them. In terms of the exact usage or specifics, I don't -- I mean, there's a number of things they deliver on our behalf. So thank you.

Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks for that clarification. I guess my follow-up question would be that number has remained static, and I understand a little bit of static throughout time before what's actually reflected on this page for several years now, and I notice too that it's going down by about $112,000. Can the Minister speak to why that is. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Member for Great Slave. Minister of Infrastructure.