Thank you, Mr. Chair. So yes, Mr. Chair, this is part of our obligation under the territorial policing services agreement. We pay 70 percent of approved costs under that agreement for police services and police operations, and in this case a request was made on behalf of G-Division to replace an aircraft that was lost back in 2023 based on the information that they have had over the last couple of years or in the couple of years thereafter identifying the need to return to having access -- regular access to an aircraft. And this specific aircraft was identified as being one that they suggest could meet the necessary safety and operational requirements that they have.

There is also within it, with respect to operations, Mr. Chair, this also includes an aircraft maintenance engineer position so that the aircraft can remain up to date in compliance with regulatory requirements, operational readiness, so on and so forth.

And I think there might have been another question, Mr. Chair. I am sorry if I missed it. Thank you.

Thank you. I will go back to the Member from YK North.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I admit this is the first time that I am hearing that we're not only responsible for paying for, like staffing and operational costs for the RCMP but in fact responsible for some capital expenditures as well. Do we have any particular agreement or contract with the RCMP around us paying for capital items that they will then own? I mean, I am particularly noting -- I mean, if it's a matter of building a building or something, we know it's going to stay here in the North but when it comes to an aircraft and then it belongs to the RCMP, theoretically they could use that anywhere that the RCMP operates. So do we have some sort of contract around terms of, you know, providing capital costs and what guarantees we would have going forward that those expenditures would be used exclusively in the NWT? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I will go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, there'd be much more detail in the contract itself, whether within the territorial police services agreement itself or within the detailed agreements around this aircraft. I suspect within the territorial police services agreement. I don't have the agreement in front of me, Mr. Chair. I think that is a fair question. So, again, I believe there is an expectation that the assets purchased by the GNWT remain for use by G-Division specifically. I will -- again, if I've -- if I am incorrect in my recollection of what the details are, I will certainly return back to the House but I believe it is that it would have to remain within the services of G-Division. I don't know that there's anything more specific but if there is, again, I will -- I can provide that clarification or additional detail. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I will go to the Member from YK North.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is the Minister aware of whether we will be obligated going forward to pay for, you know, upkeep, maintenance, replacement of capital items such as this? Is that assumed or also included in the agreement? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, thank you. I will go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is an expectation under the agreement that we would pay for these costs. It's certainly -- so, for instance, if there's a new detachment, while we wouldn't necessarily as the GNWT make the determination of what is operationally required by the RCMP, they would make that determination, but once that is determined they do come to the GNWT and there's an expectation for funding. The difference between a 70/30 would be when there's the First Nations policing agreement. I don't think I have quite that right. But then that's where the division is split more differently between ourselves and the federal government, and they pay a greater portion of it. But when it comes to some of these assets, there is that expectation. So vehicles, for instance. There's some differences when you get into RCMP accommodations. I don't have those details in front of me on the sup. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I will go to the Member from YK North.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are there precedents of -- or is the Minister aware of whether in the past we have been buying aircraft for the RCMP and how often this kind of a request might come to us? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay, thank you. I will go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not often with respect to an aircraft, Mr. Chair. In this case, the aircraft in 2023 was in an accident and became unserviceable and so that's -- we've been, I believe, borrowing an aircraft for some time or sharing, perhaps, with Yukon if I recall correctly. So it was a question of needing a new one for G-Division. But the expectation is that this will be able to amortize over a fairly extended 15-year period of time, and so hopefully that would be a -- at minimum of the useful life of the asset. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. I will go back to the Member from Yellowknife North.

Thank you. I will go to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I don't have the full details on the sup. I do know that there was inquiries made with respect to what -- whether there was insurance opportunities, warranty, so on and so forth. I don't know the conclusions of those -- of that or how -- what the outcome was. I can certainly look into it and provide the Member that information.

Okay, thank you. I will go to the Member from YK North.

No further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. I will go to the Member from Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No questions on this item, no.

Okay, thank you. Are there any further questions from Members? Okay, moving on.

Department of Justice, operations expenditures, policing services, not previously authorized, $1,050,000. Does committee agree?

Thank you. Department of Justice, operations expenditures, services to government, not previously authorized, $739,000. Are there any questions? I am going to go to the Member from Frame Lake.