May 23, 2023 Governance & Priorities Committee

[INAUDIBLE] AND

[1. Opening Statement:]

[00:00:07]

FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL, IT'S BEEN THE TRADITIONAL LAND OF THE YELLOWKNIVES DENE FIRST NATION.

WE RESPECT THE HISTORIES, LANGUAGES AND CULTURES OF ALL OTHER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, INCLUDING THE NORTH SLAVE METIS AND ALL FIRST NATIONS, METIS AND INUIT, WHOSE PRESENCE CONTINUES TO ENRICH OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD TO THE AGENDA?

[2. Approval of the agenda.]

NO, NOTHING ELSE TO ADD.

THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTERESTS IN THE GENERAL NATURE THEREOF.

[3. Disclosure of pecuniary interest and the general nature thereof.]

PERFECT. NEXT, WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE HONORABLE CAROLYN WAWZONEK, MINISTER OF FINANCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES REGARDING THE

[4. A presentation from Honourable Caroline Wawzonek, Minister of Finance GNWT, regarding GNWT 2023/2024 Budget.]

MINISTER WAWZONEK, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM.

THERE YOU GO. YOU CAN JUST PRESS THE BUTTON WHEN YOU'RE READY AND IT'S OVER TO YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR ALTY.

IT'S VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE TODAY.

WE DO OFTEN GO OUT TO COMMUNITIES, VISIT DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITY COUNCILS WHEN WE'RE THERE, AND SO IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT ONE OF THE COMMUNITIES I ACTUALLY DON'T SPEAK TO VERY OFTEN IS THIS COMMUNITY COUNCIL.

SO I'M GLAD WE'RE DOING THIS.

I THINK PERHAPS WE TAKE FOR GRANTED THAT WE'RE JUST DOWN THE WELL, LITERALLY DOWN THE SIDEWALK.

SO I THINK MAYBE THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE LOOK TO DO MORE OFTEN TO HAVE THIS KIND OF ENGAGEMENT WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S INTEREST IN THE MAIN ESTIMATES FOR ALL CITY AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS. SO THE PRESENTATION HERE TODAY GOES THROUGH WHAT IS IN THE 23-24 MAIN ESTIMATES THAT WERE APPROVED EARLIER IN THE LAST SESSION AND HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY OR AT THE END.

I'LL LEAVE THAT IN YOUR HANDS HOW YOU WANT TO MANAGE THIS.

WE'LL DO IT AT THE END. VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. THEN FIRST SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO FIRST SUMMARY OF WHAT IS IN THE MAIN ESTIMATES.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS THE OPERATING BUDGET.

I DO THINK I'M GOING TO SORT OF BELABOR THAT POINT A LITTLE BIT THAT WE WERE PROJECTING AN OPERATING SURPLUS OF $178 MILLION.

IT IS AN OPERATING SURPLUS.

SO THE GNWT IN I THINK ITS HISTORY HAS NEVER NOT RUN A DEFICIT OR HAD A DEBT THAT CONTINUES TO GROW.

THAT IS STILL THE CASE THIS YEAR.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE THE SLOWEST GROWING DEBT IN ABOUT 15 OR 20 YEARS, SO THAT'S GOOD NEWS, AND THAT'S DUE TO THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN TERMS OF THE CAPITAL PLANNING PROCESS AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE HIGHER OPERATING SURPLUS TO OFFSET SOME OF THOSE COSTS, BUT JUST DON'T BE MISTAKEN. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE FLUSH NECESSARILY WITH CASH.

IT'S STILL GOOD NEWS.

WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS POINT REVENUES PROJECTED AT $2.48 BILLION, AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, AND OPERATING EXPENDITURES ARE ESTIMATED OR AT 2.31.

THAT, OF COURSE, IS AT THE TIME WHEN THE MAIN ESTIMATES WERE BEING PUT FORWARD BACK IN JANUARY.

SO THAT DOES CONTINUE TO CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, BUT THAT IS WHAT WAS PUT FORWARD IN JANUARY BASED ON THE NUMBERS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.

NOTABLY, OBVIOUSLY, AS I THINK EVERYONE IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES IS AWARE, WE ARE CERTAINLY GOING TO BE FACING SOME SIGNIFICANT COSTS FOR FIGHTING FIRES THIS SUMMER AND ALREADY ARE.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE SITTING AT ABOUT 1.7 MILLION FOR THE FIRE FIGHTING EXPENSES, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL OF THE EVACUATION EXPENSES.

THEY ARE BEING CODED SEPARATELY, BUT JUST IN THE NATURE OF AN EMERGENCY AND EVACUATION, THAT MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY ALL BE IN THERE JUST YET, BUT BY PROXY, IF YOU MIGHT JUST AGAIN, LOOKING AT THESE NUMBERS TO GIVE A SENSE OF WHERE WE'RE AT BACK IN 2014-15, YOU MIGHT RECALL THAT WAS ALSO A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT FIREFIGHTING SEASON, AND BACK THEN THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY $55 MILLION TO FIGHT THOSE FIRES, AND IF WE ADD THE INFLATION ON TODAY, THAT PUTS US AT WOULD BE ABOUT THE EQUIVALENT OF $68 MILLION.

SO HOPEFULLY WE ARE NOT RUSHING TOWARDS THAT, BUT CERTAINLY WE ARE ALIVE TO THAT AS WE'RE KIND OF MONITORING ALL THE WAY ALONG AS TO WHERE WE ARE BASED ON WHAT IS IN THE 23-24 MAINS VERSUS WHAT OUR PROJECTIONS CONTINUE TO BE GOING FORWARD.

THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

SO AS I STARTED OUT BY SAYING THAT IT'S A LARGE OPERATING SURPLUS OWING AND THE SLOWEST A SLOW GROWING DEBT, SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE LED TO THAT ARE DETAILED HERE. THERE'S QUITE A NUMBER OF NON BUDGETARY IMPROVEMENTS FOR LONG TERM AND BETTER DECISION MAKING.

THE GOVERNMENT RENEWAL INITIATIVE IS ONE THAT I THINK GOT A LOT OF ATTENTION EARLY ON IN THE LIFE OF OUR GOVERNMENT, BUT PERHAPS HASN'T HAD AS MUCH ATTENTION MORE RECENTLY.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO BRING BACK A LITTLE BIT OF A REMINDER AS TO WHAT THAT WAS, AND SO PART OF THAT WAS LOOKING AT REALLY FUNDAMENTALLY GETTING AWAY FROM A RELIANCE SOLELY ON INCREMENTAL BUDGETING, WHICH IS WHERE WHAT YOU SPENT LAST YEAR IS WHAT YOU ASSUMED TO SPEND NEXT YEAR PERIOD, BUT LOOKING ACTUALLY AT WHAT WAS SPENT LAST YEAR AND WHETHER IT

[00:05:03]

SO WE DO NOW, WHICH WAS A SIGNIFICANT UNDERTAKING, MUCH MORE SO THAN WHAT I CERTAINLY HAD REALIZED WHEN WE BEGAN THIS, BUT WE DO HAVE THAT NOW.

SO AND THE FOLKS WORKING ON THIS, I THINK ARE REALLY EXCITED BY THE CULTURE CHANGE THAT THEY'RE SEEING IN TERMS OF ENGAGING WITH DEPARTMENTS TO DO THE WORK, BUT IT IS A MUCH LONGER TERM. IT'S A LONGER IT'S NOT MUCH LONGER.

IT IS A LONGER TERM CHANGE, BUT I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE.

SO AND THEN SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS.

BULLET TWO, IMPROVING THE ROLE GOVERNMENT PLAYS, HELPING THE ECONOMY RECOVER WITHOUT EXPENDING FINANCIAL RESOURCES.

SO THIS BIG ONE HERE IS THE RESETTING OF OUR CAPITAL BUDGET.

WE PUT A CAP ON DEPARTMENT SPENDING DOWN TO $260 MILLION ANNUALLY, WHICH IS REALLY MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE ACTUALLY SPEND ANNUALLY THAN THAN HAVING A REALLY LARGE NUMBER IN THERE THAT WE WIND UP EITHER CARRYING OVER OR SIMPLY NOT SPENDING.

SO BEING MORE REALISTIC DEMONSTRATES TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY WHAT IS TRULY IN THE POT AND AVAILABLE, BUT ALSO MORE REALISTIC TO CITIZENS WHO ARE EXPECTING PROJECTS TO MOVE FORWARD AND ACTUALLY SHOW ACTUALLY SHOW SOME PROGRESS THEREIN.

WE'VE ALSO MADE SOME CHANGES ON THE PROCUREMENT REVIEW, WHICH IS I THINK TUCKED IN UNDER THE SUB BULLETS THERE.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE IMPLEMENTED A TEMPORARY CHANGE TO LOWER THE THRESHOLD TO SUPPORT NORTHERN BUSINESSES AND ALLOW AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN MORE OF THAT THROUGH THAT.

IT'S A NO COST MEASURE THAT WE ARE HOPING THAT WE'LL SEE SOME HELP TO LOCAL BUSINESSES, AND OH, SORRY, I JUST NOTICED IN MY NOTES I FORGOT TO MENTION WITH IF I GO BACK TO THE FIRST BULLET FOR A SECOND ON THE GRI, ONE OF THE THINGS WE ACTUALLY DID SEE BENEFIT THERE IS WHEN THE MERGER HAPPENED BETWEEN LANDS AND E&R.

THEY WERE ABLE TO USE SOME OF THE INFORMATION THEY WERE GATHERING.

SO IT IS STARTING TO BEAR FRUIT, BUT GOING BACK UP TO WHERE I WAS CONTINUING ON NOW, BULLET THREE, THE RED TAPE REDUCTION WORKING GROUP FIRST PLUG IS IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF RED TAPE, PLEASE DO BRING THEM FORWARD.

IT LITERALLY IS, I THINK, REDTAPE@GOV.NT.CA.

IT'S QUITE A SIMPLE EMAIL ADDRESS.

IT GOES STRAIGHT TO THE CHAIR OF THE WORKING GROUP, WHICH IS OUR FISCAL POLICY DIRECTOR.

THE CANADIAN FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS THOUGHT THAT THE PROCESS THAT WE HAD SET UP IS VERY EFFECTIVE.

OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOW A MATTER OF ACTUALLY SEEING REDUCTIONS OF RED TAPE THAT WE WANT TO ACTUALLY START TO ACHIEVE.

THERE'S BEEN A FEW SUCCESS STORIES, BUT THEY'RE DEPENDENT ON HAVING SPECIFIC EXAMPLES.

YOU CAN'T COME AND SAY THERE'S TOO MUCH RED TAPE THAT'S NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH.

YOU NEED TO COME AND SAY THIS RULE APPLIED IN THIS WAY OR THIS OCCASION DID THIS THING AND THEN THEY CAN ACTION IT.

SO YEAH, AGAIN, THAT IS A MUCH LARGER LONGER TERM THING, BUT IT'S ONE THAT THE COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT WE'VE HAD HAVE HAD GO THROUGH HAVE BEEN YOU KNOW OF INTEREST OR THEY'RE THINGS THAT ARE NOW IN THE WORKS. SO EVEN JUST AS SIMPLE AS HAVING CORPORATE REGISTRIES GO ONLINE, THAT'S A LONGER TERM PROJECT, BUT LOOK, LET'S SHINE A LIGHT ON IT.

SO AGAIN, PUTTING JUST PUTTING A HIGHLIGHT ON THAT ONE THERE, AND THEN THE LAST BULLET, FRANKLY, PERHAPS IS A BIT NOTABLE GIVEN MY APPEARANCE BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW, BUT THE BUDGET DIALOGS PROCESS, IT'S BEING PRESENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND THE MINISTER OF FINANCE TO STAKEHOLDERS ACROSS THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES KEEPS SOME OF THOSE REALITIES AND ISSUES AND CONCERNS VERY LIVE.

YOU KNOW, AND IT IS CERTAINLY EASY, AS I SUSPECT ANY OF YOU IN ELECTED OFFICE WOULD APPRECIATE TO START TO HEAR A CERTAIN TO TRY TO HEAR A PROBLEM AND YOU START TO TRY TO SOLVE IT, YOU NEED TO CONTINUE TO CHECK IN ALONG THE WAY ALL THE TIME, AND THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT BRINGS SOMEONE IN MY ROLE AND SENIOR OFFICIALS WITH ME INTO THAT CONSTANT CONTACT WITH THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING AFFECTED.

SO I HAVE FOUND BUDGET DIALOGS REALLY, REALLY, REALLY BENEFICIAL, AND ONE OF THE THINGS I'M GOING TO PIN ON THAT ACTUALLY IS THE CHANGE WE'VE MADE NOW TO HAVE FORCED GROWTH CAN NOW APPLY TO NGOS THAT HAVE ESSENTIAL SERVICES OR THAT GIVE ESSENTIAL SERVICES ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.

IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE STARTED TO HEAR ABOUT AT BUDGET DIALOGS.

I STARTED TO HEAR ABOUT THE BUDGET DIALOGS, BUT IT .

THEN BECAME A CHANGE THAT HAPPENED IN THE LAST ROUND OF BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS WITH MLAS WHO WERE HEARING ABOUT IT AS WELL, BUT US HEARING ABOUT IT AT BUDGET DIALOGS CONSISTENTLY YEAR AFTER YEAR I THINK CERTAINLY HELPED GET THAT CHANGE TO WHERE IT WAS.

SO JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF WHERE CHANGES WERE HAPPENING BECAUSE OF ENGAGEMENTS LIKE THIS.

NEXT ONE, PLEASE.

SO INTO SOME OF THE SPECIFICS FROM BUDGET 23-24, SOME KEY INVESTMENT AREAS THAT ARE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES WIDE, BUT CERTAINLY WILL BENEFIT AND IMPACT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.

THEY SUPPORT ALL NWT RESIDENTS, BUT CERTAINLY YOU'VE GOT NUMBER ONE AT THE TOP.

THERE IS IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

[00:10:02]

YOU KNOW, AS I THINK PARTLY DUE TO COVID AND PARTLY DUE TO WHAT COVID HAS MADE APPARENT IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE CHALLENGES IN THE SYSTEM THAT WERE PROBABLY THERE TO BEGIN WITH, AND OBVIOUSLY, YELLOWKNIFE RESIDENTS CONTINUE TO BENEFIT FROM FROM HEALTH CARE AS WELL AND FROM IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SYSTEM.

YOU'VE GOT 40 MILLION, WELL OVER 40 MILLION, ALMOST 41 MILLION IN INCREASES THERE.

10.997 MILLION IS FROM THE WHAT WE CALL THE ENDEMIC PHASE OF COVID.

SO SHIFTING INTO FROM EMERGENCY INTO ENDEMIC.

IT INCLUDES CHANGES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE CHIEF PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICER'S OFFICE TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S BETTER SUPPORTS MOVING FORWARD IN THOSE TWO OFFICES. INCREASES TO COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS.

SO THIS, AGAIN, PROBABLY IS ONE THAT HAS HAD A FAIR BIT OF PRESS IN TERMS OF THE NEEDS TO SEE INCREASES TO EMPLOYMENT TO KEEP PACE WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING ELSEWHERE IN CANADA SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO ACTUALLY BE CONSIDERED ONE OF THE TOP PLACES TO GO FOR HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS AND 8.6 MILLION THERE FOR OPENING UP THE STANTON LEGACY FACILITY.

I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCILLORS HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO TOUR IT YET, BUT I IMAGINE THAT COULD BE ARRANGED IF YOU HAVEN'T.

I KNOW MLAS JUST WENT ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO AND THEY'RE MOVING ALONG STEADILY. THEY'RE VERY PROUD OF THE FACILITY, BUT IT OBVIOUSLY DOES NEED TO BE OPENED AND THAT COSTS MONEY TO OPEN IT.

SO THERE'S SOME MORE MONEY TO OPEN IT.

THAT BENEFITS, OBVIOUSLY, ALL OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES RESIDENTS.

I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU HERE THAT WHEN FOLKS COME FROM ELSEWHERE TO ACCESS THESE SORTS OF FACILITIES, THEY ARE COMING FROM ACROSS THE TERRITORY, BUT IT CERTAINLY HAS A NOTABLE IMPACT HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE AS WELL.

CONTINUING ON TO THE SECOND BULLET AND MORE GENERALLY, JUST SHY OF 17 MILLION IMPROVEMENTS AND ENHANCEMENTS TO A VARIETY OF OTHER PROGRAMS. YOU'VE GOT THE 10 MILLION THERE FOR THE EARLY LEARNING AND CHILD CARE, AND LOOK, I'M CERTAINLY NOT HERE TO SOLVE NECESSARILY EVERY PROBLEM FOR CHILD CARE, EARLY CHILD CARE PROVIDERS. I KNOW THIS ONE HAS BEEN CHALLENGING.

IT WAS CHALLENGING TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT THERE IS A PATH AT LEAST THAT WE'RE HOPEFULLY NOW ON GETTING TOWARDS A TIME WHEN THERE'S MORE AFFORDABLE, MORE AVAILABLE CHILD CARE. I THINK A NUMBER OF PLACES HAVE OPENED UP SINCE SOME OF THE EARLY DAYS WHEN THIS ANNOUNCED.

SO IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY ANY MEANS, BUT THERE'S A FAIR BIT QUITE A LOT OF MONEY THAT IS GOING INTO THIS AND HOPEFULLY WILL OVER SOME PERIOD OF TIME SEE SOME FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT ENHANCEMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS BEYOND THE SHORTER TERM ONES THAT ARE MOVING FORWARD ALREADY.

INCREASES FOR INCOME ASSISTANCE IS ON THERE AS WELL AND INCREASES TO STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE, AND SOME OF THAT ACCOMPANIES POLICY CHANGE AS WELL.

THESE ARE REALLY EC&ES BAILIWICK TO SPEAK TO YOU, NOT MINE, BUT THEY WERE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT.

THESE ARE PRETTY SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS TO SEE CHANGES TO I THINK THE MOST THAT IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, ANYONE HAD SEEN IN A COUPLE OF ASSEMBLIES ANYWAYS, PARTICULARLY TO INCOME ASSISTANCE AND TO REMOVE THINGS LIKE PRODUCTIVE CHOICES, WHICH REALLY WASN'T SEEMINGLY BENEFITING ANYBODY, INCLUDING ANY OF THE FOLKS THAT HAD TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM.

SO THOSE ARE THE DOLLAR VALUES, BUT THERE'S SOME POLICY CHANGES THAT ACTUALLY MIGHT HOPEFULLY MAKE SOME CHANGES AS WELL IN TERMS OF FREEING UP STAFF TIME AND FREEING UP THE TIME OF THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

THE STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE REALLY OPENS IT UP AS WELL, AND AGAIN, I WON'T TAKE ANY THUNDER, BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, WE'RE HAPPY TO GET THE DETAILS OF IT.

REALLY TRYING TO ENCOURAGE PARTICULARLY INDIGENOUS STUDENTS FROM THE NORTH TO RETURN AND TO TAKE AWAY SOME OF THE BURDENS, FOR EXAMPLE, OF PUTTING CAPS ON HOW MANY TIMES YOU MIGHT HAVE TO GO BACK TO FINISH.

THAT'S NOT THE POINT.

THE POINT IS TO GO BACK AND FINISH AND NOT TO SAY YOU CAN ONLY TRY ONCE.

SO SMALL CHANGES, BUT ACTUALLY HOPEFULLY FAIRLY IMPACTFUL.

I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE $8.275 MILLION IF I CAN AVOID IT BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT MY FAVORITE, BUT NO, ALL KIDDING ASIDE.

SO COSTS RELATED TO THE CARBON TAXES, I MEAN, IT IS THOSE ARE WHAT THEY ARE, AND IF YOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE FEDERAL CARBON TAX, CERTAINLY HAPPY TO TAKE THEM. THEY ARE GOING TO BE HAVING IMPACTS FOR EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, AND YEAH, AND YEAH, AND CERTAINLY TO THE CITIES AS WELL, BUT YOU KNOW, WE HOPE THAT WE'VE LANDED ON A POSITION THAT WILL HELP SUPPORT SOME OF THE CITY'S INCREASED COSTS AS WELL, AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, 6.164 MILLION FOR POLICING SERVICES.

OBVIOUSLY, THAT INCLUDES YELLOWKNIFE, ALTHOUGH THIS, PARTICULARLY IS TARGETED AT SOME OF THE JURISDICTIONS OR MUNICIPALITIES THAT DIDN'T HAVE POLICE SERVICES OR AS MANY POLICE SERVICES AS WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY NEEDED OR THAT WERE ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED BY THE RCMP'S OWN POSITIONING IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU NEED PER PER RESIDENTS.

SO THEN IF I COULD.

[00:15:01]

YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL $2 MILLION IN FUNDING FOR 23-24 TO HOUSING NWT TO HELP FINALIZE AND IMPLEMENT THE DRAFT HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY. SO IT'S DRAFT, BUT IT IS OUT RIGHT NOW.

IT IS AVAILABLE PUBLICLY. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

IT'S MEANT TO BE AN EVERGREEN POLICY.

SO IT'S BEING CALLED DRAFT NOW, BUT IT'S MEANT TO BE EVERGREEN GOING FORWARD ANYWAY.

SO IT'S OPEN FOR SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR FEEDBACK AND INPUT NOT ONLY NOW BUT GOING FORWARD, BUT RIGHT NOW, BEFORE THE MONEY STARTS TO BE ATTACHED TO IT.

THIS WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY THAT IF FOLKS HAVE COMMENTS OR IDEAS THAT THEY WANT TO ADD, AGAIN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AT THIS POINT.

THEY ARE RIGHT NOW WITH SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL MONEY THAT'S COME IN THAT'S BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM.

THEY'RE PROPOSING TO INCREASE FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY SHELTERS SO THAT EMERGENCY SHELTERS AND THE SHELTER NETWORK CAN INCREASE THEIR OPERATIONAL FUNDING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, WHICH INCLUDES, OBVIOUSLY, SHELTERS HERE IN YELLOWKNIFE.

THAT'S REALLY MEANT TO BE A TEMPORARY, NOT TEMPORARY, BUT MEANT TO BE AN IMMEDIATE THING.

THE BROADER FUNDING OF THE HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY HAPPENS OVER FUTURE ASSEMBLIES WHERE SO IN SOME WAYS IT'S QUITE FRANKLY UNUSUAL TO HAVE A DRAFT STRATEGY THAT HAS ANY DOLLARS ATTACHED TO IT.

SO THIS IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I'D ACTUALLY PUT IN THE CATEGORY OF A WIN FOR THE ASSEMBLY AND FOR CONSENSUS GOVERNMENT IN THAT THIS WAS A PRIORITY FOR, I WOULD ARGUE, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER CABINET AND NON AND IT WAS A CHANCE FOR EVERYONE COULD ACTUALLY COME TOGETHER AND SAY HEY LET'S LET'S PUT A NOT INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY OUT ON THIS DRAFT STRATEGY.

SO IT'S ONE THAT I'M HIGHLIGHTING FOR THAT REASON BECAUSE I THINK IT TELLS, I THINK, A NICE STORY FROM A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, AND RIGHT BEFORE I MOVE ON, THE SECOND BULLET.

SO ONGOING FROM LAST YEAR, THERE WAS AN ENHANCEMENT LAST YEAR DURING BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS OF 1.7 MILLION TO THE HOUSING PROGRAMS, AND THESE WERE REALLY WE WANTED TO TARGET NOT HAVING TO ASK HOUSING NWT'S INTERNAL STAFF TO BE ABLE TO GET MONEY OUT THE DOOR FASTER, BUT ACTUALLY SAY THESE ARE THE PROGRAMS PEOPLE CAN APPLY TO DIRECTLY. SO FOLKS WHO WANT TO YOU KNOW, AS IT LISTS THERE DO THE HOME REPAIRS, EMERGENCY REPAIRS, FUEL TANK, ETCETERA.

IT'S MONEY THAT GOES OUT THE DOOR THROUGH APPLICATION TO INDIVIDUALS, WHICH IS SOMETIMES, QUITE FRANKLY, A LOT EASIER TO GET OUT QUICKLY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 1.7 MILLION THAN TO TRY TO GO AND ASSIGN SOMEONE INTERNALLY TO GO AND DO THE EMERGENCY REPAIR OR DO A THING.

SO THIS GETS THAT MONEY OUT THE DOOR TO THE FOLKS WHO HOPEFULLY NEED IT.

I BELIEVE THEY WERE ALL I BELIEVE THE PROGRAM WAS FULLY SUBSCRIBED LAST YEAR.

SO, AGAIN, I COULD BE CORRECTED ON THAT, BUT I THINK THAT IS THE CASE, AND THAT WILL CONTINUE NOW, THIS YEAR WITH THAT 1.7 MILLION.

THE NEXT ONE, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

ANOTHER ONE HERE AGAIN, EMERGENCY SERVICES I KNOW IS OF INTEREST TO EVERY MUNICIPALITY, AND THIS IS A ONE TIME INCREASE OF $400,000 FOR ELIGIBLE GOVERNMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXISTING MUNICIPAL GROUND, AMBULANCE AND RESCUE SERVICES FUNDING POLICY.

I ANTICIPATE YOU FOLKS MAY WELL BE MORE FAMILIAR WITH THAT POLICY SINCE THIS IS A MACA POLICY, BUT AND IT'S MEANT TO HELP SUPPORT ACTIVITIES SUCH AS TRAINING AND PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT, IMPROVING CAPACITY AND OR ANY OTHER ONE TIME IMPLEMENTATION COSTS ASSOCIATED OR DERIVED FROM THOSE THINGS.

SO IF YOU BUY A NEW VEHICLE AND YOU MAY NEED TO DO SOMETHING TO SUPPORT HAVING A DRIVER WHO CAN DRIVE THE NEW VEHICLE.

IT IS MEANT TO BE APPLICATION BASED AND FOR CURRENT RECIPIENTS ONLY.

SO FOR COMMUNITIES THAT DON'T YET HAVE A MUNICIPAL AMBULANCE SERVICE, THIS ISN'T GOING TO SOLVE THAT ADMITTEDLY LONG STANDING PROBLEM AND IT'S A CHALLENGE THAT I YOU KNOW, IT WAS TALKED ABOUT A FAIR BIT AT THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, AND I THINK EVERYONE'S AWARE THAT AS WE HAVE MORE ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, THERE'S ARGUABLY A GREATER NEED.

AT THE SAME TIME, SMALLER COMMUNITIES WOULD STRUGGLE WITH THE CAPACITY TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER THESE KINDS OF SERVICES.

SO THIS IS THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE ONE, BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, FOR THE SERVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE, HAVING AVAILABLE TRAINING AND SERVICES ARE CERTAINLY HOPEFULLY GOING TO BE ONE WAY OF ENHANCING WHAT SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE NOW SO THAT THEY AREN'T FURTHER DRAWN DOWN UNNECESSARILY.

ONTO THE NEXT, THANKS.

SO THIS NEXT ONE, UNDER THE YOUTH SPORT AND RECREATION, THIS IS REALLY TRYING TO FIND A WAY

[00:20:01]

SO THIS WAS REALLY MEANT TO TRY TO ENHANCE THE AVAILABILITY AND ENHANCE THE ABILITY OF GROUPS OUTSIDE OF THE LARGE CENTERS TO BE ABLE TO COME INTO THE CENTERS.

SO IT HAS THE SORT OF SIDE BENEFIT IN A SENSE OF IMPROVING ALL TERRITORIAL SPORT.

IF THERE'S MORE STUDENTS PARTICIPATING, MORE GROUPS PARTICIPATING, MORE TEAMS PARTICIPATING, EVERYONE HAS GREATER COMPETITION.

YOU'RE NOT JUST PLAYING AGAINST THE SAME THREE OTHER TEAMS ALL THE TIME, BUT THE TARGET GROUPS HERE ARE THOSE THAT WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE TRIP, WHICH TYPICALLY IS NOT YELLOWKNIFE COMPETITORS.

SO THIS ONE IS TARGETING AN OUTSIDE OF YELLOWKNIFE GROUP, BUT CERTAINLY DO WANT TO BRING IT TO ALL OF YOUR ATTENTION AS IT OBVIOUSLY DOES IMPACT YOUTH GROUPS AND SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS WILL ACROSS THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES.

I'M SORRY, AND IT IS ALSO ANOTHER ONE THAT IS COMING IN AS FOR APPLICATION, IT'S APPLICATION BASED AS WELL AS THE CURRENT POLICY IS AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE PUT TOGETHER A FEW OF ITEMS THAT ARE VERY SPECIFIC TO THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, AND IT'S I'LL SAY IT'S NOT A COMPLETE OR EXHAUSTIVE LIST NECESSARILY. I'M SURE THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER PROGRAMS BY DEPARTMENT THAT THE CITY IS INVOLVED WITH AND PARTICIPATES WITH AND APPLIES TO.

THESE ARE JUST SOME HIGHLIGHTS THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE LIST.

SO AND I DO WANT TO SORT OF BEFORE I START RUNNING THROUGH THE LIST AND I DO HAVE NUMBERS FOR YOU.

I DID ASK FOR THE NUMBERS.

WE JUST DIDN'T GET THEM ONTO THE SLIDE IN TIME, BUT HAVING JUST GONE THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION OF SOME OF THE OTHER WORK THAT'S HAPPENING PLEASE DO CONSIDER THAT THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER OPPORTUNITIES IN THERE FOR THE CITY AND IF THERE'S QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY, AGAIN, WHICH I'LL AT THE RISK OF BELABORING OR OTHER FRONTLINE SERVICES THERE'S STILL A LOT OF WORK HAPPENING WITH THE DELIVERY OF INTEGRATED SERVICE DELIVERY, WITH THE DELIVERY OF VARIOUS OTHER PROGRAMS. ITI CERTAINLY HAS A LOT OF VARIOUS FUNDING PROGRAMS. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK YOU WANT TO DO AND YOU'RE WONDERING IF THERE'S FUNDING DOESN'T HURT TO ASK AND TO ASK AROUND EC&E AND I.T.

IN PARTICULAR, AS THEY COME UP THERE, DO HAVE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES AND CAN OFTEN WORK WITH YOU.

I THINK I'VE GIVEN THIS MESSAGE BEFORE.

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A SECRET, BUT ADVOCATING DIRECTLY TO THOSE DEPARTMENTS THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET THROUGHOUT THEIR YEAR ALLOWS THEM TO MOVE THOSE THINGS THROUGH THEIR BUDGETING CYCLE. SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK A DEPARTMENT CAN WORK WITH YOU ON, IF THEY NEED TO GO OUT AND TO BE ADVOCATING INTERNALLY, THE SOONER YOU'RE ON TO THEM AND NOT WAITING UNTIL OUR MAIN ESTIMATES ARE TABLED ONCE THINGS ARE GETTING TABLED, IT'S THAT'S NOT THE EASIEST TIME NECESSARILY TO SEE A WHOLE LOT OF CHANGE, BUT RIGHT RIGHT AROUND NOW MIGHT NOT BE A BAD TIME TO BE PAYING ATTENTION.

SO BUT HERE I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THE LIST OF WHAT WE DO HAVE.

AGAIN, IT MIGHT GIVE IDEAS AS TO WHAT'S THERE AND OR WHERE YOU MIGHT WANT TO SEE CHANGES IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING ADVOCATING.

SO UNDER MACA COMMUNITY PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING, OBVIOUSLY 3.9 MILLION THERE AND THE GRANT-IN-LIEU PROPERTY TAX PROGRAM, 8.4 MILLION FOR 22-23. SO THOSE ARE SIGNIFICANT AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR INVESTMENT HERE.

WE'VE GOT VIA THE INVESTING IN CANADA INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN AND SMALL COMMUNITIES FUND.

SO AGAIN, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT PROJECTS, AS I SUSPECT YOU ALL KNOW, ARE BEING CHOSEN RIGHT NOW.

THE ESTIMATES WE HAVE FOR 23-24 ARE SITTING AT 4.044 MILLION UNDER THE SMALL COMMUNITIES FUND AND 7.65 UNDER ICIP OR THE CANADA INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN.

SO SPORT AND RECREATION FUNDING WE HAVE HERE LISTED AS BEING AT AROUND $80,000 FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE AND WHAT WAS FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE GAS TAX, WHICH HAS A NEW NAME THAT I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE PUT DOWN THERE, $5.9 MILLION FOR PROJECT FUNDING IN 23-24.

GROUND AMBULANCE FOR YELLOWKNIFE RIGHT NOW IS AT $37,000.

NOW EC&E'S SUPPORT FOR THE YELLOWKNIFE PUBLIC LIBRARY SITS AT 110,000.

ITI'S SUPPORT FOR THE VISITOR CENTER IS BACK TO SITTING AT AROUND 161 AND COMMUNITY EVENTS IS APPLICATION BASED.

SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ONES WHERE I SAID, DON'T WAIT TILL THE WEEK OR TWO BEFORE, AND I'M NOT SAYING THE CITY DOES.

I THINK THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE IS ACTUALLY FAIRLY ACTIVE IN BEING EARLY, BUT YEAH, THE EARLIER THE BETTER IS ALL I CAN SAY.

SO ONE NOTE I'LL MAKE A PLUG WITH MY ITI HAT ON IS I KNOW WE'VE PUT OUT NOW A LIST OF ANNUAL EVENTS, MAINLY BECAUSE I WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH THE AIRLINES SO THAT MAYBE THEY WILL ARRANGE THEMSELVES IN A WAY THAT SUPPORTS THOSE EVENTS, BUT IT'S A RESOURCE THAT I THINK CAN BE MORE WIDELY UTILIZED IS KNOWING WHAT'S

[00:25:02]

SO SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY EVENTS.

IF YOU HAVE AN ANNUAL LIST OF YOUR EVENTS, LIKE LET'S PLEASE CONSIDER HAVING THAT TO US AS A REGULAR THING, AS A CALENDAR THING THAT IT GETS SENT OVER TO ITI AND/OR EC&E, DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF SUPPORT AND IF IT BELONGS, MACA WILL CERTAINLY MAKE SURE IT GETS WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO, AND THEN THE LAST ONE, I THINK, MAYBE DIDN'T GET ON THERE, BUT WE DO HAVE THE COMMUNITY TRANSFER INITIATIVES WHICH GOT $50,000 AS WELL THIS YEAR.

SO THAT IS THE CONCLUSION FORMALLY OF THE PRESENTATION, MADAM MAYOR, BUT I AM HAPPY TO TAKE SOME QUESTIONS AND I APOLOGIZE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH TIME WAS ALLOTTED TO ME, SO MAYBE I'M DONE, BUT IF NOT, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS.

NO PROBLEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT YOU'RE THE MINISTER OF FINANCE AND YOU'RE PRESENTING THE BUDGET.

HOWEVER, IT'S YOUR COLLEAGUES, IF THERE'S A REALLY SPECIFIC QUESTION.

SO OPENING IT UP TO QUESTIONS.

COUNCILLOR HENDRICKSEN.

THANK YOU, MAYOR ALTY, AND THANK YOU, MINISTER, FOR COMING THIS MORNING.

FIRST, JUST A COMMENT AND THEN I'LL GET TO THE QUESTION, BUT JUST A COMMENT REGARDING THE GNWT HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY REFERENCED ON PAGE FIVE.

I KNOW THIS COMMENT DOESN'T DIRECTLY AFFECT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, BUT YOU'RE HERE AND IT'S COMMENTED, SO I'M TAKING A CHANCE.

JUST DURING THE ENGAGEMENT SESSION I REFERENCED A FEW WEEKS BACK, REALLY JUST A SUGGESTION TO MOVE AWAY FROM THAT WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT APPROACH MENTALITY AND TOWARDS A WHOLE OF SYSTEM APPROACH, BECAUSE IT IS, AS YOU MENTIONED, THE NGOS WHO REALLY TAKE ON SO MUCH OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY, AND SO, YES, THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO WORK CLOSELY TOGETHER AND WITH ITSELF, BUT WITH COMMUNITY GOVERNMENTS, NGOS, ETCETERA.

SO JUST MAYBE A WORDING THING.

TO MY QUESTION, THOUGH, AND THIS CONCERNS THE ISSUE OF THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SUBMARINE WATER LINE, WHICH WE'LL BE GETTING A PRESENTATION ON AFTER YOUR PRESENTATION AND QUESTIONS TODAY.

SO WE'LL BE RECEIVING THAT PRESENTATION SHORTLY CONSIDERING WE ALL KNOW THE CITY IS UNDERFUNDED BY 9 MILLION A YEAR ROUGHLY, CONSIDERING WE KNOW THAT THE FEDS HAVE CAPPED US ON THE APPROVED AMOUNT THROUGH THE DISASTER MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION FUND.

CONSIDERING THAT THE WATER IS USED AS FRESH WATER BY HALF THE TERRITORIAL POPULATION, AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF THE YELLOWKNIVES DENE FIRST NATION, CONSIDERING THE ONLY REASON WHY RISK ANALYSES RECOMMEND SOURCING WATER FROM THE YELLOWKNIFE RIVER IS BECAUSE OF THE LEGACY OF ARSENIC FROM GIANT WHICH THE CITY WASN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR REGULATING.

I GET THE DIRECT QUESTION IS WILL THE GNWT LOOK AT AND BE WILLING TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY TO HELP FUND THIS CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FRESH WATER FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE? THE YKDFN FOR THE THOUSANDS OF TOURISTS WHO VISIT EVERY YEAR, AS WELL AS COMMUNITY MEMBERS ACROSS THE NWT AND NUNAVUT WHO COME TO OUR CITY WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING FOR HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CARE.

SO I KNOW IT'S A TOUGH QUESTION, BUT IT'S COMING UP ON OUR AGENDA, AND I'D BE VERY REMISS NOT TO ASK.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR RESPONSE.

MINISTER. THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND THANKS FOR THE QUESTION.

SO THAT DEFINITELY IS A MACA QUESTION.

SO, YEAH, I CAN'T COMMIT TO SOMETHING THAT IS DEFINITELY AND SQUARELY WITHIN THEIR DEPARTMENT AND NOT ONE THAT I THINK IS NEW TO THEM, AND THE VERY EFFECTIVE PHRASING OF THE QUESTION SUGGESTS THAT YOU PROBABLY HAVE ASKED IT AND HAVE REFINED YOUR ASK OVER TIME.

SO YEAH, LOOK, I'LL GO BACK AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND PARTICULARLY WITH THE MINISTER OF MUNICIPAL AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS.

IT IS A CHALLENGE BEING FACED BY OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND THAT'S WHERE WE RUN INTO THE CHALLENGE OF WHILE I CAN APPRECIATE THE POINTS THAT YOU MAKE, ONE OF THE CLEAVAGE POINTS IN THE ASSEMBLY IS BETWEEN YELLOWKNIFE AND EVERY OTHER COMMUNITY AND WHILE YOU CAN GET INTO IT AND YES, WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S 50%.

YES, WE UNDERSTAND EVERYONE GOES THERE, BUT WHAT ABOUT MY COMMUNITY? SO IT IS A CLEAVAGE POINT THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH, AND IT'S A POLITICAL ONE, AND THAT'S JUST A REALITY, AND THAT'S THE COMPOSITION OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF 33 COMMUNITIES, SOME REGIONAL AND SOME NOT.

THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THAT.

OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S THE NATURE OF CONSENSUS GOVERNMENT.

WE'VE SKY HASN'T FALLEN ON US THIS FAR, BUT YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE AS EASY AS BEING ABLE TO SAY THAT THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE GETS THIS AND NO OTHER COMMUNITY GETS IT.

THAT SAID, YOU KNOW YEAH, THE INCREASES IN PROJECT COSTS, I SEE THE NUMBER OF OVERAGES THAT YOU GUYS ARE DEALING WITH ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.

I AM ALIVE TO IT BECAUSE WE ARE SEEING SIMILAR INTENSE OVERAGES ON PROJECTS THAT WE WERE ALSO EXPECTING TO BE 75% FUNDED AND WHAT THAT IS DOING TO US.

SO YEAH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH BECAUSE WE'RE GOING THROUGH IT.

THAT'S NOT MISERY LOVES COMPANY.

SO I'LL GO BACK TO MACA.

OUR GREATEST OPPORTUNITY MIGHT BE IF THERE'S AN ASK THAT WE CAN HELP SUPPORT YOU WITH FEDERALLY THAT WE CAN AT LEAST TRY TO CONVEY FROM OUR SIDE AS WELL.

[00:30:02]

THANKS. YEAH, AND I JUST MENTIONED THAT IT WAS BUILT IN 1967 BY THE GMW OR SORRY, THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA CON MINE AND GIANT MINE.

SO WITH THE MINISTER'S OTHER HAT AS THE MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR GIANT, HE SHOULD BE WORKING WITH HIS FEDERAL COLLEAGUES TO INCLUDE THIS IN THAT $4 BILLION CLEANUP.

THEY HAVE BEEN WILLING TO COMPENSATE US FOR LEISURE BOATS.

IF THERE'S EVER A MOMENT THAT THE BOATING COMMUNITY CAN'T ACCESS THE WATER BECAUSE OF THE CLEANUP.

HOWEVER, PROVIDING CLEAN DRINKING WATER TO HALF THE TERRITORY HAS BEEN OMITTED FROM THEIR PROJECT.

SO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES HAVE TO STEP UP WITH THIS.

SO HOPING THAT YOURSELF, MINISTER THOMPSON, MINISTER ARCHIE, ARE ABLE TO TALK TO YOUR FEDERAL COLLEAGUES ON THIS PROJECT.

COUNCILLOR HENDRICKSEN.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, AND THANK YOU AGAIN, MINISTER, FOR COMING.

I KNOW THAT WASN'T PART OF IT AND I KNOW YOU KNEW THAT THIS WAS COMING IN THE AGENDA, BUT I KNOW THIS WASN'T NECESSARILY SOMETHING.

SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT RESPONSE, AND I KNOW THAT YOU'RE A GOOD ADVOCATE FOR YELLOWKNIFE AS AN MLA FOR THE CITY AS WELL, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

YEAH, JUST HIGHLIGHTING AGAIN THE CITY CAN TAKE ON DEBT THE SAME WAY THE GNWT AND FEDS ARE OR THE FEDS CAN AND I JUST AT THIS POINT, I CAN'T SEE HOW OUR TAX BASE SUPPORTS THIS PROJECT.

SO I JUST REALLY WANT TO HAMMER HOME WHAT THE MAYOR WAS SAYING THERE.

SO THANK YOU, MAYOR ALTY THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU, MINISTER, FOR COMING.

I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT HAVING MORE BUDGET DIALOGS WITH US, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'RE JUST DOWN THE SIDEWALK.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO ECHO WHAT MY COLLEAGUES WERE SAYING ABOUT THE WATER SUBMARINE LINE, AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOUR CABINET COLLEAGUES, BUT AS YOU SAID, IT IS ALSO A POLITICAL PROBLEM.

SO I WOULD HOPE YOU WOULD ADVOCATE FOR MAYBE ANOTHER ELECTORAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION WHERE WE CAN GET PROPER REPRESENTATION FOR OUR CITY, BUT ONTO THE QUESTION OF BUDGET 23-24.

I SAW A LOT OF ASPECTS.

WE'RE TALKING AROUND SPORTS HERE.

I'M JUST WONDERING IF THE MINISTER COULD SPEAK MORE TO DIRECT FUNDING AND INVESTMENT IN OUR ARTS AND CULTURAL SECTOR, AND IF IT'S ANY WAY WITHIN BUDGET 23-24.

MINISTER. YEAH, THANKS.

I DEFINITELY WANT TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT ONE BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS SOME FUNDING, CERTAINLY IT'S TYPICALLY WITHIN EC&E'S BUDGET.

SO WITH ONE EXCEPTION AND I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME, MAYBE THE DEPUTY MINISTER MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET IT WHILE I SPEAK IF I JUST FILL THE AIR FOR A LITTLE BIT, BUT WE DID HAVE AN ENHANCEMENT TO SEED THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY TARGETING TO THE ARTS SECTOR.

I'M TEMPTED TO THROW OUT A NUMBER, BUT I SHOULDN'T DO THAT WHEN I'M SPEAKING PUBLICLY, SO I WON'T, BUT I WILL EMAIL YOU ALL ON YOUR COUNCILLOR'S WEBSITE TO JUST CONFIRM WHAT THAT NUMBER IS. THE BEAUTY OF IT IS THAT, WELL, NOT THE BEAUTY, I SHOULDN'T PUT IT THAT WAY.

WHAT'S WHAT'S CONVENIENT AND EASY, IF YOU WILL, IS THAT BECAUSE IT'S COMING IN UNDER THE EXISTING SEED, WE HAVEN'T HAD TO GO AND SAY, ALL RIGHT, HOW ARE WE GOING TO SPEND THIS $2 MILLION? MUCH AS WITH THE HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY, THERE WAS A BIT OF A SCRAMBLE TO FIGURE OUT, OKAY, NOW WE HAVE THIS MONEY IN THE BUDGET.

WHAT DO WE DO? THE SEED POT EXISTS.

SO BUMPING IT UP SIGNIFICANTLY AS THEY DID FOR TARGETING AN AREA OF ARTS AND CULTURE IS EASIER BECAUSE IT'S AN EXISTING POT AND NOW THERE'S JUST MORE IN IT.

SO IT'S, YEAH, I'LL GET THAT NUMBER TO YOU AND JUST MAKE SURE THAT I GET IT CORRECTLY BECAUSE THAT WAS AN INCREASE RIGHT THERE.

NOW THAT'S THE STANDALONE SEED BUDGET.

AGAIN, EC&E HAS OTHER FUNDING STREAMS AND THE ARTS STRATEGY IS RIGHT NOW JUST BEING FINALIZED AND MOVED FORWARD, WHICH DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE MONEY ATTACHED, UNLIKE THE HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY, BUT WHAT IT DOES DO, ONE OF THE BIG ONES THAT BOTH MINISTER SIMPSON AND I HEARD REPEATEDLY IS STARTING TO TAKE SOME ACTION TO START TO STREAMLINE SO THAT THERE'S NOT JUST THESE TWO DEPARTMENTS, EACH ONE KIND OF DOING THEIR OWN THING, EACH ONE WITH THEIR OWN PIECE OF THE PIE, BUT TO ACTUALLY BE MORE MEANINGFUL, TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS TO APPLY, AND BY DOING SO, HOPEFULLY START TO GET MORE CANADA COUNCIL FOR THE ARTS MONEY COMING IN.

WE ARE, I THINK, THE LOWEST FUNDED ANYWHERE IN CANADA RIGHT NOW.

LOTS OF HEADS NODDING, WHICH I WAS GOBSMACKED BY, BUT PART OF IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF WHAT WE DIDN'T HAVE FROM OTHER FUNDING SOURCES.

SO HOPEFULLY WITH SOME OF THIS WILL START TO GET MORE OF THAT MONEY NOW, TOO.

SO THANKS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MINISTER, AND I HOPE TO SEE YOU ON A YEARLY BASIS.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR WARBURTON.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I PARTICULARLY LIKE THE RED TAPE WORKING GROUP INFO.

IT'S CLOSE TO MY HEART.

JUST CURIOUS WHO'S ON THAT COMMITTEE? WHO DO THEY REPORT TO? JUST A BIT OF A RUNDOWN. IS THERE LIKE AN ANNUAL REPORT COMING OUT OF THAT? YEAH, JUST SO WE CAN KIND OF HAVE THE BACK AND FORTH ON THAT, WHICH WOULD BE IT'S SEEING THE WINDS IS HELPFUL, RIGHT.

MINISTER. [INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

I ALSO LIKE THE RED TAPE WORKING GROUP.

I WON GOLDEN SCISSORS FOR THE RED TAPE WORKING GROUP.

IT'S VERY EXCITING.

[00:35:01]

I'M AGAIN THE MEMBERS OF THE RED TAPE WORKING GROUP RIGHT NOW.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EMAIL YOU ON THAT AS WELL, BUT WE HAD PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE THE GNWT ON IT.

SO THAT'S WHAT I JUST DON'T KNOW WHO THE CURRENT MEMBERS RIGHT NOW ARE.

THEY MAY HAVE CHANGED. SO THE POINT WAS TO NOT JUST BE NECESSARILY INTERNAL INDIVIDUALS LOOKING AT OUR OWN PROCESSES, BUT TO HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE OUTSIDE ACTUALLY SAYING, HEY, YOU SHOULD FIX THIS, AND SO IDEALLY THE PROCESS IS SOMEBODY WILL EMAIL OR PEOPLE HAVE EMAILED ME OFTEN AND THEN I JUST WILL SEND IT DIRECTLY ON TO OUR DIRECTOR OF FISCAL POLICY WHEN THE GROUP MEETS, AND I THINK THEY WERE MEETING QUARTERLY AT ONE POINT, SUBJECT TO HAVING SOMETHING ON THEIR AGENDA OBVIOUSLY.

SO PLEASE MAKE THEM BUSY.

THEY WOULD MEET QUARTERLY AND THEN DEVELOP A WORK PLAN TO TACKLE WHATEVER THE ISSUE WAS.

OFTEN STEP ONE REALLY WAS TO GO TO THE SOURCE DEPARTMENT, THE SOURCE OF WHATEVER THE ISSUE WAS, AND SORT OF GET THEIR IMMEDIATE RESPONSE, AND THERE IS AN ANNUAL REPORT THAT WAS TABLED, I THINK, IN THE HOUSE.

SO AGAIN, WE'LL SEND YOU THE LINK THOUGH, BECAUSE IT SPEAKS TO SOME OF THOSE INITIAL SUCCESSES.

A COUPLE OF THEM I THINK WERE FAIRLY EASY AND A COUPLE ARE STILL ONGOING, BUT THAT'S BUT IT DOES SPEAK TO IT.

THEY ALSO GET THERE'S A REPORT THAT COMES IN TO THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT BOARD.

SO ISSUES THAT SOMETIMES NEED AWARENESS FROM A MINISTER THAT ALSO COMES IN TO US AS WELL, WHICH LOOK, THAT PROCESSES CAN BE A CERTAIN WAY BECAUSE NO ONE'S TAKEN HAD TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

SO SOMETIMES IT'S THE AWARENESS OF IT, BUT YEAH, AND THEN THEY ARE EXPECTED TO HAVE THE WORK PLAN OF HOW IT WORKS.

IT GETS WORKED THROUGH AND THEN, AS I SAY, REPORT INTO FMB AND/OR REPORT OUT PUBLICLY.

SO THANKS.

AWESOME. THANKS. YEAH, I KNOW THE RECENT CHANGES TO THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE HAVE [INAUDIBLE] MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND MONTHS OF TIME TO BUILD STUFF, SO YEAH, MORE OF THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THANKS.

THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR FEQUET OR COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM MAYOR, AND THANKS TO THE MINISTER FOR COMING AND PRESENTING.

I HAD A QUESTION, BUT YOU ADDRESSED IT IN YOUR PRESENTATION, WHICH WAS AWESOME JUST REGARDING THE DRAFT HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY FUNDING, AND IT'S GREAT TO SEE FUNDING THERE AND THAT THE INTENTION IS FOR THE FUNDING TO BE INCREASED IN THE COMING YEARS.

SO JUST TO COMMENT THAT THE SORT OF 6 MILLION FOR POLICING AND TWO FOR HOMELESSNESS TO ME DOESN'T NECESSARILY SEEM LIKE A SUSTAINABLE RATIO.

SO IT'S GREAT TO HEAR THERE'S MORE MONEY COMING FOR THE HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY, AND A QUESTION I GUESS TO ADMIN OR TO THE MINISTER WITH THESE MAIN ESTIMATES, DO WE KNOW WHAT THE SHORTFALL IS IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY FORMULA FUNDING FOR THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE? AND GUESS TO THE MINISTER, IS THERE ANY WORK GOING ON TO ADDRESS THAT SHORTFALL? TOP SECRET INFORMATION THAT WE CAN'T SEEM TO GET FROM MACA.

MINISTER. THANK YOU FOR THE FOREWARNING, MAYOR ALTY.

NO. SO LOOK, FIRST LET ME JUST QUICKLY GO BACK FOR A SECOND ON THE 6.1 FOR POLICING VERSUS 2 MILLION ON HOMELESSNESS.

I MEAN, THAT'S THE MONEY THAT'S NEW IN THIS BUDGET.

THE REALITY IS THE COST OF RCMPS IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES IS MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN 6.1 MILLION BECAUSE WE PAY A GOOD CHUNK OF THAT THEIR SALARIES AND HOUSING AND OTHER PROVISIONS IN THAT AGREEMENT.

SO IT'S A LOT MORE THAN 6.1 MILLION.

THAT'S JUST THE INCREASES HERE, WHICH I KNOW YOU KNOW ABOUT BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR BECAUSE YOU'RE NODDING ALONG, BUT SIMILARLY ON HOMELESSNESS, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY HOUSING NWT GETS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY AND HAS SEEN A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

SO THESE ARE REALLY JUST INCREASES RIGHT NOW, AND A $2 MILLION INCREASE IS ONE OF THE SINGLE BIGGEST INCREASES WE'VE SEEN IN A WHILE.

DOESN'T TOTALLY SOLVE THE CHALLENGES OF BALANCING BETWEEN CRIME AND PUNISHMENT AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO DEAL WITH HOMELESSNESS, BUT AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO GET ME GOING DOWN THE PATH OF INTEGRATED SERVICE DELIVERY, WHICH SO I'LL STOP JUST TO SAY THAT I I'M AWARE THAT ONE DOESN'T EQUAL OUT OR CANCEL OUT THE OTHER.

NOW SHORTFALL TO COMMUNITIES.

I UNDERSTOOD THERE WAS WORK HAPPENING OVER AT MACA ESSENTIALLY TO REDO THAT CALCULATION TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE ALL ARE AT AND WHETHER OR NOT A CALCULATION DONE TEN YEARS AGO IS IN FACT STILL AN UP TO DATE CALCULATION.

I DON'T HAVE A SECRET MATH POCKETBOOK OF WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE DOING RIGHT THIS MOMENT, BUT I WILL CERTAINLY GO BACK AND ASK.

I THINK WE ARE ALL LIVE RIGHT NOW AS MINISTERS TO THE FACT THAT WE'RE COMING UP TO SORT OF THREE MONTHS TO GO AND ARE KEEN TO SEE THINGS THAT WE'VE COMMITTED TO WORK ON TO SEE AT LEAST WHERE THEY'RE AT, AT THE VERY LEAST, SO I CAN GO AND SEE WHERE THEY ARE AT IN DOING THAT MATH AND DOING THAT RE-CALCULATION.

WE DID HIT THE PROMISED 5 MILLION THAT WAS PROMISED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ASSEMBLY, AND YOU DON'T NEED TO TELL ME THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.

[00:40:02]

SO I WILL FOLLOW UP ON THE MATH.

THANKS. YEAH, I DID JUST WANT TO SAY LIKE WE APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS THAT 5 MILLION INCREASE.

HOWEVER IF WE'RE NOT KEEPING PACE WITH INFLATION, IF WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY KEEPING AN EYE ON THE GAP, THE GAP IS GOING TO INCREASE.

SO APPRECIATE YOU TAKING A LOOK INTO THAT.

COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

YEAH, JUST THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE ANSWER AND FOR COMING AND PRESENTING.

THANKS AGAIN. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR FEQUET. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME OKAY? NOT BAD. YEP.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION, MINISTER WAWZONEK.

I HAVE A SLEW OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO BRING UP THE SLIDE PRESENTATION.

IT MIGHT BE EASIEST TO ME TO REFERENCE POINTS ON EACH SLIDE, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE [INAUDIBLE], AND IT WILL ALSO BE HELPFUL FOR ME JUMPING BACK ON THIS LITTLE TINY SCREEN.

MY FIRST QUESTION IS ABOUT GOVERNMENT RENEWAL.

I APPRECIATED THE BULLET THERE THAT TALKED ABOUT INCREMENTAL VERSUS ZERO BASED BUDGETING, AND I GUESS TWO QUESTIONS. ONE IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM I DON'T WORK FOR THE GNWT, BUT I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DO, AND BASICALLY THE MAIN WORK THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE SO FAR, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, WAS THE INVENTORY OF PROGRAMS AND SERVICES, AND IN ITSELF THAT IS HELPFUL TO MAKE SURE THAT IS IN PLACE, BUT THE BUDGETING, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR INCREMENTAL BASED BUDGETING VERSUS ZERO BASED BUDGETING THAT'S NEW TO PEOPLE IN THE GNWT ANYWAYS, THAT'S NOT THE GOAL OF GOVERNMENT AS FAR AS THEY HEARD, AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING IN THE COUPLE OF YEARS THAT THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON, THIS INITIATIVE, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY BUDGET IMPLICATIONS OR TANGIBLE RESULTS AS A RESULT OF THE GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE? LIKE HAVE THERE BEEN COST SAVINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, OR ANY OTHER INITIATIVES OR MONETARY KIND OF BENEFITS OF THE GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE TO DATE? MINISTER. YEAH.

THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND THANKS FOR THE QUESTION.

I USED TO TALK ABOUT GOVERNMENT RENEWAL QUITE A LOT AND IT'S KIND OF HASN'T COME UP AS MUCH.

SO BE FOREWARNED IF YOU'RE LETTING ME TALK ABOUT IT MORE, BUT IT STARTED OUT OF A REALLY A QUESTIONING AROUND WHY WE DO INCREMENTAL BUDGETING THAT WAS THAT AROSE REALLY AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS ASSEMBLY WHERE WE HAD A LOT OF NEW MINISTERS AND A LOT OF NEW MEMBERS SAYING, WHAT DO YOU MEAN THIS IS HOW THIS IS DONE? SO I THINK SOME OF THE PHILOSOPHY THAT UNDERPINNED WHY IT STARTED OUT CAME FROM THIS A BIT OF A FRANKLY, A BIT OF FRUSTRATION OF YOU JUST KEEP SPENDING THE SAME AMOUNT WHICH IN CONSENSUS GOVERNMENT WHERE WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE A PARTY THAT COMES IN WITH A WHOLE NEW PLATFORM EVERY TIME THAT PUTS ITS PLATFORM DOWN AND SAYS THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO, INCREMENTAL BUDGETING BECOMES REALLY SORT OF THE NATURAL WAY IN WHICH GOVERNMENT CONTINUES BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE NEW THING THAT COMES IN EVERY FOUR YEARS.

WE HAVE INCREMENTAL CHANGE.

SO THERE WAS A THERE WAS A LOT OF CHANGE THIS LAST ROUND AND AN AWARENESS THAT THE TIME BEFORE THAT HAD HAD A LOT OF CHANGE, TOO.

SO THERE WAS A DESIRE TO TRY TO SAY, WELL, CAN WE GET TO A PLACE THAT IS MORE VALUE DRIVEN AND EFFICIENCY DRIVEN THAN JUST MERELY FORCE GROWTH PLUS A FEW INITIATIVES EQUAL CHANGE.

SO THAT'S I THINK, WHERE THAT COMES FROM.

WHAT BECAME APPARENT WAS THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW EVERY SINGLE THING THAT WAS BEING DONE ACROSS DEPARTMENTS, AND SO THAT BECAME THE FIRST STEP, WHICH IS HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PAGES LONG.

SO THAT TOOK AND THAT GOT GOING RIGHT AROUND THAT TIME OF COVID.

SO THAT TOOK A LITTLE WHILE, A LOT LONGER THAN WHAT IT MIGHT HAVE OTHERWISE, WHERE DEPARTMENTS WERE BEING ASKED TO DO AN AWFUL LOT THAT THEY WEREN'T NORMALLY ATTUNED TO DO FROM WITHIN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY DON'T NORMALLY HAVE TO WORK WITHIN.

SO THAT'S WHY THAT I THINK TOOK A LOT LONGER TO GET TO THIS POINT.

THE WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW, PHASE TWO IS THE EVALUATION PHASE WHERE DEPARTMENTS GO THROUGH AND SELECT SOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS THAT THEY WANT TO PUT THROUGH A MORE INTENSE EVALUATION PROCESS, AND THERE'S DIFFERENT SCALES AND SIZES OF EVALUATIONS THAT MIGHT GO ON.

SOME THAT WILL REQUIRE EXTERNAL CONTRACTORS AND SOME THAT WOULD BE CAN BE DONE INTERNALLY BY OUR OWN EVALUATION PROFESSIONALS, AND THAT'S THE STAGE WE'RE IN RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT. SO IT'S TOO EARLY AT THIS POINT TO SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE.

WE DIDN'T CERTAINLY DIDN'T CHANGE BUDGET 23-24 AS A RESULT OF THOSE EVALUATIONS, BECAUSE ONLY THEY'RE ONLY JUST STARTING TO ROLL OUT FOR THE FIRST COHORT OF DEPARTMENTS, AND THEN THE NEXT GROUP WOULD BE GOING IN, I THINK STARTING IN ROUGHLY JANUARY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

SO IT'LL BE BASICALLY A YEAR FROM NOW UNTIL WE HAVE THE FULL SUITE OF INITIAL EVALUATIONS DONE WHEN YOU CAN START TO SAY, LOOK, IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT BEING SPENT JUSTIFIED? AND I KNOW THAT DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE MANAGEMENT BOARD SECRETARIAT, WHO WHERE THEY'RE DOING A LOT OF THIS WORK WITH THE INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS TO SAY WHICH OF YOUR PROGRAMS DO YOU THINK YOU NEED TO PUT THROUGH THIS?

[00:45:02]

SO IT IS, YEAH, ONE THING I WOULD SAY AS FAR AS WHERE IT'S BEEN HELPFUL SO FAR, AGAIN, THAT'S WHERE I WANTED TO POINT OUT THE MERGER OF E&R AND LANDS AS THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT, WHETHER TO DO THAT, THEY WERE ABLE TO GO AND ACTUALLY PULL THE TWO DEPARTMENTS' INVENTORIES OF PROGRAMS AND LOOK AT SIMILARITIES OR LACK THEREOF AND THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

SO THANKS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT RESPONSE.

YEAH, I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, I THINK WE RELY ON THE PARTNERSHIPS A LOT, TRANSFER FUNDS AND OBVIOUSLY OTHER STRATEGIES THAT ARE TERRITORY WIDE, LIKE BEN COUNCILLOR HENDRICKSEN MENTIONED SYSTEMS APPROACH FOR HOMELESSNESS, AND SO I THINK JUST TO SHARE THE COMMENT WITH THE GNWT THAT CERTAINLY SOME PROGRAMS SHOULD BE JUSTIFIED, AND I KNOW THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND EC&E BOTH ALREADY ALREADY HAD THEIR OWN EVALUATION UNITS AND ARE DOING ONGOING EVALUATIONS ALL THE TIME ON THEIR OWN PROGRAMS, SOME OF THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT DIDN'T HAVE THOSE EVALUATION UNITS, AND SO INFRASTRUCTURE, JUSTICE, LANDS AND OUR ET-CETERA AND I THINK AS A CITY HAVING SOME CERTAINTY ON WHAT THE CORE FUNDING, WHAT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AS INCREMENTAL BASED BUDGETING.

I MEAN, RIGHT NOW WE'RE DEPENDING ON A FORMULA THAT YOU SAID IS ACTUALLY LOOKING AT IT.

I HADN'T HEARD THAT, SO I HOPE THAT'S TRUE, BUT I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE SCARY BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO RELY ON THE GNWT FOR THE LONG TERM THAT WE HOPE WILL BE INCREMENTAL AND WILL NOT BE CHANGING FULL STOP.

SO MAYBE I'LL MOVE ON TO THE HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY.

I HAD A QUESTION.

I KNOW THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, ANOTHER NGO PARTNERS HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE HOMELESSNESS, THE HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS FAMILIES AND INFORMATION SYSTEM, HIFIS, IS A PROGRAM THAT SEVERAL NGOS USE TO TRACK HOMELESSNESS AND SOMETHING THAT HAS SUGGESTED IN ITS STRATEGY THAT WANTS TO DO.

HOWEVER, IT'S SOMETHING THAT GNWT HAS NOT TALKED TO THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE ABOUT AND IS REINVENTING THE WHEEL, AND AGAIN, THIS KIND OF SEEMS TO BE GOING INTO A SILO APPROACH AND THERE ARE MONTHLY MEETINGS THAT ONLY GNWT FOLKS ARE INVITED TO AS PART OF THE INTEGRATED SERVICE DELIVERY, AND SO TWO QUESTIONS ARE, IS THE GNWT AS PART OF A STRATEGY, GOING TO EXPAND ITS COLLABORATION WITH IMPORTANT PARTNERS THAT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE REALITY OF HOMELESSNESS , AND SECOND, THE DIRECTOR OF THE INTEGRATED SERVICE DELIVERY OF HOMELESSNESS, WHICH DEPARTMENT WILL BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE EFFECTIVENESS OR THE OUTCOMES OF THIS STRATEGY? DON'T KNOW IF YOU'D BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT OR IF YOU'LL HAVE TO RELAY BACK TO MINISTER CHINNA/THE PREMIER, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE EXECUTIVE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO MOVE ALL THIS TO, BUT OVER TO YOU.

YEAH. THANKS FOR THAT.

YEAH, THE STRATEGY, AS YOU QUITE RIGHTLY POINTED OUT, REFERENCES THE YELLOWKNIFE'S SUCCESS WITH ITS PROGRAM.

SO I'M SURPRISED IF YOU'RE SENSING THAT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TALKED TO ABOUT THAT.

I'LL CERTAINLY TAKE THAT BACK AND JUST LET OUR FOLKS KNOW.

AS FOR I MEAN, THERE'S INTEGRATED SERVICE DELIVERY FOR HOMELESSNESS.

GIVES ME A CHANCE TO SAY I APPRECIATED THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE AND THE TERMINOLOGY THAT'S USED.

IT'S A SIMILAR TERMINOLOGY TO WHAT GETS USED IN RESPONSE TO MISSING AND MURDERED INDIGENOUS WOMEN AND GIRLS THAT WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE JUST LOOKING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE SERVICE, BUT LOOKING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PERSON WHO RELIES UPON THE SERVICE.

SO I DO THINK TERMINOLOGY DOES MATTER BECAUSE IT CHANGES HOW WE THINK ABOUT SOMETHING.

YEAH, THIS WAS STILL SUPPOSED TO ULTIMATELY RESIDE WITH THE HOUSING NWT AS TERMS OF A LEAD DEPARTMENT, BUT THE EXECUTIVE STEPPED IN ON THE HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY, GIVEN ITS IMPORTANCE TO THE ASSEMBLY.

YEAH, I MEAN, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INTEGRATED SERVICE DELIVERY, INTEGRATED SERVICE DELIVERY, HOMELESSNESS, HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY, I MEAN, YEAH, I THINK I'D WANT TO GO BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT I'M ANSWERING THE RIGHT QUESTION AND THEN MAKER SURE THAT I'M NOT MISTAKING THE DIFFERENT POTENTIAL CONTACT POINTS THEREIN, BUT WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT I WILL TAKE ALL THOSE THREE DIFFERENT AS I'VE LAID THEM OUT SORT OF AGAIN, HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY [INAUDIBLE], BUT THEN [INAUDIBLE] WITHIN THE HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY AND MAKE SURE THAT I'M UP TO SPEED WITH EXACTLY WHO YOUR BEST CONTACT POINT IS AND IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES ANTICIPATED GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THAT MAY EVEN HAVE GOTTEN AWAY ON ME.

I JUST KNOW THAT I DID WANT TO STEP IN AND SORT OF TAKE SOME TAKE CHARGE AND TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY UNDER THIS, GIVEN ITS IMPORTANCE, BUT MY EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING IS

[00:50:01]

SO THANKS.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE SLIDE PRESENTATION KEPT UP THERE.

SORRY, JUST TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE.

I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE RED TAPE REDUCTION WORKING GROUP THAT WAS PARTIALLY ANSWERED IN A PREVIOUS RESPONSE.

I BELIEVE COUNCILLOR WARBURTON ASKED ABOUT JUST WHERE DO THE RECOMMENDATIONS GO AND I THINK I HEARD IT GOES TO THE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT BOARD.

I'M JUST WONDERING, ARE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THAT WORKING GROUP GOING TO BE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE OR WILL THERE BE WHAT WE HEARD REPORT OR WILL THERE BE SOME WAY THAT THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO SEE NOT JUST THE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT WHAT THE GNWT DECIDES TO ACCEPT OR REJECT? MINISTER.

THANK YOU, MADAM PREMIER, AND NOPE, SORRY WRONG ONE.

MADAM MAYOR. [CHUCKLING] IT'S A GOOD ONE. YOU CAN BE ABLE TO SAY BOTH, RIGHT? ISN'T THAT NICE? THAT'S A GOOD PROBLEM TO HAVE.

NO, AND THANKS FOR THE QUESTION.

SO, YEAH, AGAIN, I'LL GO BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK.

YOU KNOW, THE REPORT THAT WAS TABLED WAS SOME TIME AGO NOW, BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY QUITE CLEAR IN LAYING OUT THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO THE COMMITTEE AND THE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS WITH IT.

SO LOOK, IF I'M INCORRECT IN THAT THE GOOD NEWS IS I GET TO GO BACK AND SAY, HEY, WHY WEREN'T WE MORE CLEAR IN OUR REPORT BECAUSE THAT CERTAINLY WOULD BE MY UNDERSTANDING.

THAT'S KIND OF THE POINT OF IT ALL BUT WE'LL SEND YOU THE LINK, BUT I'LL ALSO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT AND MAKE SURE THAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS ACCURATE AND IF NOT, WE'LL CHART A PATH TO MAKE SURE IT'S MORE CLEAR GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THAT'S THE POINT TO GET THE INFORMATION OUT ABOUT WHAT'S BEING CHANGED.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

JUST TWO MORE, I THINK.

THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

THE NEXT ONE WAS ABOUT MACA.

SORRY, I'M JUST SKIPPING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN MY PDFS HERE.

I THINK IT WAS THE.

.. I THINK IT WAS THE 500,000 THAT YOU MENTIONED ON SLIDE SEVEN.

YOU MADE THE IMPORTANT POINT I APPRECIATE ABOUT ENSURING THAT THE MONEY FLOWS TO THE REGIONS TO BETTER SUPPORT ATHLETES.

YOU KNOW, TRYING OUT FOR TERRITORIAL [INAUDIBLE] TEAMS THAT ARE DOING GAMES CANADA GAMES AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

CAN YOU CONFIRM WHO THE ADDITIONAL MONEY IS GOING TO FLOW THROUGH? WHICH OF THE FIVE SPORT PARTNERS OR IS IT THE TERRITORIAL SPORT ORGANIZATIONS THEMSELVES? MINISTER, DO YOU HAVE THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL? THANK YOU, MAYOR ALTY. WELL, I CAN SHARE WITH YOU EXACTLY WHAT WAS GIVEN TO ME THROUGH MACA.

SO YOUTH TOURS IS THE FIRST COHORT THERE, AND THAT ONE IS AGAIN, I BELIEVE, APPLICATION BASED TO MACA.

IF I'M INCORRECT, I'LL DEFINITELY SEND THAT BACK TO YOU AND MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.

THE REGIONAL SPORT DEVELOPMENT POLICY, THE REGIONAL SPORT DEVELOPMENT POLICY FUNDING IS MEANT TO BE INITIATIVES GRANTED TO MACKENZIE RECREATION ASSOCIATION FOR THE SOUTH SLAVE DET'ON CHO AND NORTH SLAVE COMMUNITIES, AND THEN REGIONAL SPORT DEVELOPMENT POLICY FOR INUVIK AND SAHTU COMMUNITIES.

SO I GATHER IT IS THROUGH THOSE REGIONAL ENTITIES AND NOT NECESSARILY THROUGH THE SPORTS ORGANIZATIONS THEMSELVES.

THANKS, MADAM MAYOR.

THANKS FOR THAT RESPONSE AND THAT CLARITY, AND I THINK THAT DOES ANSWER MY QUESTION, THAT IT'S GOING TO MACA AND THE OTHER SPORT PARTNERS, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT ALL OF THE VARIOUS SPORTS HAVE TERRITORIAL SPORT ORGANIZATIONS, THE TSOS, THAT BASICALLY OPERATE AND DO SO MUCH WITH SO LITTLE AND TRY VERY HARD TO ENSURE THAT ATHLETES FROM SMALL COMMUNITIES HAVE THE SAME CHANCE AT TRYOUTS AND ADDITIONAL MONEY.

LOOK TOWARDS THOSE INITIATIVES WOULD BE WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S FOR A FEW DIFFERENT INITIATIVES, AND MY LAST QUESTION IS JUST AN ASK FOR THE SLIDE RESPECTING THOSE TITLED THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET THE NUMBERS IN ADVANCE.

MINISTER, COULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE THOSE NUMBERS FOR ALL OF THOSE INITIATIVES ON SLIDE EIGHT, AS A FOLLOW UP, I KNOW YOU KIND OF RAN THEM OFF QUICK AND I CAPTURED SOME OF THEM, BUT I DIDN'T GET ALL OF THEM AND ALSO THE NUMBERS FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

SO THE NUMBERS THEMSELVES DON'T MATTER UNLESS WE CAN SEE RELATIVE TO WHAT HAS BEEN GIVEN IN PREVIOUS YEARS FOR THOSE.

SO THAT INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN REALLY HELPFUL, OBVIOUSLY, IF IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE IN ADVANCE TO HELP US PREPARE OUR QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT IT WOULD STILL BE USEFUL AND BENEFICIAL IF WE COULD [INAUDIBLE] AFTERWARDS.

WE ALSO WOULD HAVE THAT IN OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND OUR BUDGET SO WE CAN ALSO CIRCULATE IT, BUT BECAUSE WE APPROVED OUR BUDGET DECEMBER 2022, THERE WOULD BE SOME NUMBERS THAT YOU'VE APPROVED IN APRIL THAT WE WILL ACTUALLY

[00:55:06]

WELL, YEAH, WE'LL SEE AN INCREASE FROM THE PUBLIC SAFETY STUFF, BUT APPRECIATE THAT.

ANYTHING FURTHER, COUNCILLOR FEQUET? NOPE? OKAY. COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

HI, THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CLARITY THAT I'M SEEKING AROUND THE ADDITIONAL OR THE ENHANCEMENT TO SEED FOR ARTS FUNDING.

YOU SAID IT'S GOING INTO THE SEED, THE GENERAL SEED POT, AND I CAN APPRECIATE WHY THAT WOULD MAKE IT EASY ADMINISTRATIVELY, BUT IS IT ALLOCATED THROUGH A SPECIFIC.

FUNDING CATEGORY UNDER SEED, I GUESS.

I ASSUME, YES, BUT I JUST WANTED TO.

MINISTER. YEAH.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. IT IS NOT THE GENERAL SEED.

IT IS THE SPECIFIC FUNDING FOR UNDER SEED, AND I JUST CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT'S FILM OR IF IT'S FILM AND ARTS, AND THAT'S WHERE I'M HESITATING, BUT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY UNDER A BRANCH OF SEED AND NOT JUST GENERAL.

THANKS. YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT DOESN'T SOLVE ARTISTS' PROBLEMS IF THEY'RE NOT GETTING ARTS SPECIFIC FUNDING, THEY CAN'T GET [INAUDIBLE] FUNDING LATER.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.

SO YOUR 2023-2024 MAIN ESTIMATES AS PER YOUR SLIDE, THE OPERATING SURPLUS IS $178 MILLION.

IS THAT AN UNALLOCATED SURPLUS OR IS IT ALLOCATED? SO YELLOWKNIFE HAS A $15 MILLION SURPLUS, BUT THAT'S NOT FUNDING JUST SITTING IN THE BANK WAITING FOR US TO SPEND ON WHATEVER.

THAT'S OUR GAS TAX THAT WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR OUR POOL.

SO JUST WONDERING WHETHER THIS IS AN UNALLOCATED OR ALREADY ALLOCATED SURPLUS.

MINISTER. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

SO THIS IS WHERE I'M SAYING IT'S NOT REALLY A SURPLUS SURPLUS, LIKE UNDER THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, WE'VE MANDATED OURSELVES THAT ALL OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE SPEND 50% OF THE MONEY THAT WE SPEND ON INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS TO COME FROM AN OPERATING SURPLUS.

SO THIS IS THE 50% THAT WE THEN ARE GOING TO BE SPENDING ON OUR CAPITAL PLAN.

SO IF THE CAPITAL PLAN IS 300 AND SOME MILLION DOLLARS THIS THIS GIVES US THAT 50%, AND I DON'T HAVE OUR CAPITAL PLAN NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THIS ONE THIS ALLOWS US TO REMAIN WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF WHAT WAS IN OUR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY POLICY.

SO IT GIVES US ENOUGH WHEN WE WERE HAVING CAPITAL PLANS AS A BIT OF A HOLDOVER BECAUSE CAPITAL PLANS ARE BUILT-IN AGAIN ALSO OVER THE COURSE OF SOME TIME WE WERE PUSHING $450 MILLION.

WELL, WE NEVER HAD AN OPERATING SURPLUS APPROACHING ANYTHING THAT WOULD PAY THE 50%.

SO IF YOU ACTUALLY DELIVER ON YOUR CAPITAL PLAN, YOU WIND UP BREACHING OUR OWN FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY POLICY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE 50% IN THE OPERATING SURPLUS TO PAY FOR THE CAPITAL. SO WHAT REALLY IN A NUTSHELL, IF I MIGHT MAKE IT TRY THAT JUST ONE MORE WAY FOR THE SAKE OF IT, THE OPERATING SURPLUS MEANS WE TAKE ON LESS DEBT TO PAY FOR CAPITAL, IN A NUTSHELL. OKAY.

THANK YOU. I KNOW WE GET INTO THESE WHAT I THINK ARE ACCOUNTING TERMS, AND SO PEOPLE MIGHT THINK THAT WE HAVE THIS GIANT BANK ACCOUNT WHEN IN REALITY IT'S ALREADY ALLOCATED.

YEAH, JUST A FEW COMMENTS.

APPRECIATED SEEING THE INCREASE FOR HOMELESSNESS.

I DO LIKE THE GNWT DRAFT HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY.

I LIKE A LOT OF THE STRATEGIES THAT COME OUT, BUT IF THERE'S NO FUNDING ALLOCATED, THEN IT DOESN'T GET DONE.

IN PARTICULAR, THE YOU DID TALK THAT THERE'S ALREADY THE FORCED GROWTH FOR NGOS AND THE HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY TALKS ABOUT ALSO ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR SHELTERS AND ENSURING ADEQUATE FUNDING TO MAINTAIN THE STANDARDS WITH THE LIMITED ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS, AND IN TALKING TO THE ONE OF THE LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE EVENING SHELTER, I THINK IT'S ABOUT A 20 CLIENTS PER ONE STAFF RATIO, WHICH IS WAY TOO HIGH.

IT MEANS THAT STAFF ARE NOT ABLE TO ADEQUATELY DEESCALATE SITUATIONS THAT CAN LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN CLIENTS THAT ARE BANNED AND THEN HAVE NOWHERE TO GO AND THE GNWT'S DAY SHELTER BACK WHEN IT OPENED, HAD AN EIGHT CLIENTS TO ONE STAFF RATIO, WHICH IS MUCH MORE MANAGEABLE, PROVIDES THE BETTER CLIENT SUPPORT. WE'VE SEEN THAT IN ITS LOCATION.

WE'VE HAD GREAT FEEDBACK ON IT.

SO I THINK THAT'S A GREAT INITIATIVE, AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST A DRAFT AND WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT STAYS IN THAT STRATEGY AND THAT THE GNWT BUDGET'S ACTUALLY ADEQUATELY FUNDING THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES.

[01:00:06]

THERE'S A LOT OF STUDIES WE CAN DUST OFF.

I THINK IT WAS 2002 THAT THE GNWT GOT ONE THAT LOOKED AT DIFFERENT FINANCIAL MODELS TO PROCEED CARBON TAX IS IT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON US FROM AN EXPENSE BUT APPRECIATE THAT THERE'S BEEN FUNDING TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY GOVERNMENTS REALLY STRONGLY ADVOCATE THAT IT DOESN'T BECOME AN APPLICATION BASED PROCESS, BUT THAT IT'S INCLUDED IN OUR ANNUAL FUNDING APPLICATION BASES ARE JUST SO ADMINISTRATIVELY IT'S A HUGE BURDEN HERE AT THE CITY.

WE ARE ONE OF THE BIGGEST WELL, WE ARE THE BIGGEST MUNICIPALITY.

THERE'S NOT A CHANCE THAT ALL MUNICIPALITIES CAN CAN APPLY.

SO WHEN YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, OH, WE'VE GOT ANOTHER APPLICATION BASE, IT'S LIKE, GREAT, WELL, AND THEN NOBODY APPLIES, AND THEN IT'S LIKE, WELL, THERE'S NO DEMAND.

LOOK IT, NOBODY APPLIED.

IT'S LIKE, NO, THE BARRIER IS WE HAVE NO EMPLOYEES TO APPLY FOR IT.

WE'LL SPEND THE MONEY AND WE'LL SPEND IT.

WELL, THAT WOULD BE A GOOD RED TAPE REDUCTION INITIATIVE.

THE ONE THING I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE THE GNWT NEXT ASSEMBLY IS MORE OF THAT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ON SOCIAL FUNDING AND INCREASING SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS. I LOOK AT STREET OUTREACH, WHICH THE GNWT DOESN'T FUND AND THE CITY'S TAXPAYERS DO VERSUS THE GNWT IS PAYING A LOT IN AMBULANCE FEES AND COSTS.

IF WE ACTUALLY WORK TOGETHER ON THIS, WE CAN UNBURDEN OUR AMBULANCES, WE CAN REDUCE THE NUMBER OF E.R.

VISITS SO THAT THOSE EMERGENCY SERVICES ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO EMERGENCIES VERSUS WHAT IT'S CURRENTLY BEING USED FOR.

AGAIN, THERE'S YOU'RE SPENDING THE MONEY.

IT'S JUST ONE POT OR THE OTHER.

SOCIAL WORKERS WORKING WITH THE RCMP.

THAT'S A PREVIEW, BUT AN NWTAC RESOLUTION COMING FORWARD FROM ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY.

SO, AGAIN, THERE'S A COST TO DOING NOTHING WHERE WE'RE SPENDING A LOT.

THE CANADIAN SUBSTANCE USE JUST SHOWED, I THINK IT'S CLOSE TO NOW, $6,000 PER RESIDENT.

THAT'S SIX YEAR-OLDS UP TO EVERYBODY.

SO WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY ON THESE SOCIAL HARMS, AND THE GLOBE AND MAIL HAD A GOOD ARTICLE YESTERDAY ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES IN DOWNTOWN OSHAWA, WHICH YOU COULD REPLACE OSHAWA WITH YELLOWKNIFE OR ANY OTHER CANADIAN CITIES AND SO GOVERNMENTS ARE PROVIDING FUNDING TO SOCIAL PROGRAMS, BUT IT'S NOT ENOUGH.

SO THE PROBLEMS ARE JUST CONTINUING TO GROW.

SO REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH NOT ONLY THE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NEXT TERM TO HELP ADDRESS SOME OF THAT STUFF.

SO JUST SOME COMMENTS AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE REMAINING 3 OR 4 MONTHS OF THE TERM.

YEAH. GO INTO SECOND ROUND OF COMMENTS.

COUNCILLOR FEQUET. THANKS, MADAM MAYOR.

I HAD FORGOTTEN ONE, SO I APPRECIATE THE SECOND ROUND.

IT WAS ON SLIDE FOUR.

THE PRESENTATION WAS ABOUT.

THE 10.3 MILLION FOR EARLY LEARNING AND CHILD CARE.

I JUST WANTED THE MINISTER TO CLARIFY TWO THINGS.

IS THAT AMOUNT IN A CONTRIBUTION FROM THE GNWT OR THE FLOW THROUGH FROM THE FEDERAL INITIATIVE? AND THE SECOND QUESTION IS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FEDERAL INITIATIVE HAS KIND OF A RUNWAY, I THINK IT'S 2022 TO 2025 OR 2026, AND IT'S TRANSFORMING THE SECTOR AS FAR AS HOW THE SECTOR HAS TO RUN IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THOSE DOLLARS.

WHAT IS THE GNWT'S LONG TERM PLAN TO PROVIDE ITS OWN FUNDS [INAUDIBLE] FEDERAL FUNDING INITIATIVE STOPS IN A COUPLE OF YEARS? MINISTER.

THANKS, MADAM MAYOR, AND THANKS FOR THE QUESTIONS.

SO I BELIEVE THAT IS THE FEDERAL AMOUNT, BUT I COULD BE MISTAKEN, SO I'LL CONFIRM IF THAT'S INCORRECT.

I MEAN, YEAH, THE LONG TERM PLAN THAT I THOUGHT EC&E PUT THEIR MATERIALS OUT PUBLICLY.

I'LL CERTAINLY BE HAPPY TO GET A LINK TO YOU IF I'M MISTAKEN, BUT THERE ARE DIFFERENT PHASES TO WHAT THEY ANTICIPATE NEEDING TO DO IN TERMS OF HAVING TO GROW THE SECTOR TO PROVIDE. SO PROVIDING FUNDING FOR TRAINING SO THE SECTOR CAN GROW ITS ABILITY, PROVIDING FUNDING TO HELP INCREASE THE WAGES OF THOSE WORKING IN THE AREA AND INCREASING THE AVAILABILITY OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDS.

SO WE ALREADY DID PUT IN, I THINK, TWO BUDGETS AGO NOW $500,000 FOR AN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND ESSENTIALLY TO HELP SUPPORT THE CREATION OF NEW SPACES, BUILDING OF NEW SPACES, AND THAT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED THROUGH THE LAST FEW YEARS.

[01:05:01]

SO THE INCREASE COMES FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT BY ANY STRETCH THE ENTIRETY OF THE AMOUNT THAT EC&E SPENDS ON THIS.

SO HAVING SAID ALL THAT, MAYBE THAT WILL BE THE OTHER THING IS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE LINK TO EC&E'S MATERIALS ON THIS SPACE AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

THEY'VE BEEN MAKING CHANGES IN PRETTY RAPID SUCCESSION BECAUSE THIS IS AN AREA THAT THEY'VE, I THINK HAD QUITE A BIT OF FEEDBACK ON AND NEW INFORMATION AND MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN COMING OUT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.

SO WE'LL GET YOU THAT LATEST INFORMATION, AND AS I SAY, I CAN GET YOU THE TOTAL BUDGET, WHICH IS A FAIR BIT MORE THAN THAT.

THANKS. THANKS, AND SORRY, MINISTER, I REALIZE WE'RE ACTUALLY OVER YOUR TIME AND YOU HAVE A 1:30 COMMITMENT.

SO IF WE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR EMAIL IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE, SO WE'LL BE SURE TO SEND THEM IN, BUT WE DO APPRECIATE IT, AND YEAH, WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING THESE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S VALUABLE AND IT'S A PUBLIC FORUM, SO IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RESIDENTS TO HEAR MORE ABOUT YOUR PUBLIC FORUM AS WELL, AND I'M SURE EVERYBODY IS LISTENING AND READING HANSARD DEEPLY.

[CHUCKLING] SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR COMING.

OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA ISN'T A LIGHT TOPIC.

SO WHAT I'D SUGGEST IS PERHAPS WE TAKE A QUICK TEN MINUTE BREAK SO WE CAN JUST COME BACK AND THEN DIVE RIGHT INTO THAT.

SO BE BACK FOR 1:24 P.M..

OKAY. I'LL CALL OUR GPC BACK TO ORDER, AND NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS.

[5. A memorandum regarding whether to apply to Infrastructure Canada to seek a four (4) year Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (submarine water line replacement) project schedule extension to 2032, while advancing regulatory and design work, and continuing to seek funding assistance to meet budget shortfalls.]

A MEMORANDUM REGARDING WHETHER TO APPLY TO INFRASTRUCTURE CANADA TO SEEK A FOUR YEAR DISASTER MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION FUND FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF OUR SUBMARINE WATERLINE SCHEDULE EXTENSION TO 2032 WHILE ADVANCING REGULATORY AND DESIGN WORK AND CONTINUING TO SEEK FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO MEET BUDGET SHORTFALLS.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE ITEM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, ABSOLUTELY. SO AS COUNCIL MEMBERS KNOW, THE PIPELINE THAT DRAWS RAW WATER FROM THE MOUTH OF THE YELLOWKNIFE RIVER ALL THE WAY TO THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT IS REACHING ITS END OF LIFE. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY INSTALLED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BACK IN THE LATE 60S AND IT WAS FUNDED AT THE TIME THROUGH HEALTH AND WELFARE CANADA, GIANT MINE AND CON MINE, AND IT WAS INTENTIONAL TO BRING WATER FROM UPSTREAM OF GIANT AND CON MINES TO PUMPHOUSE NUMBER ONE AT THE FOOT OF SCHOOL DRAW.

THE CITY HAS MADE EVERY EFFORT TO PRESENT TO PREVENT EXCUSE ME, THE COST OF REPLACEMENT FROM FALLING ONTO YELLOWKNIFE RESIDENTS.

SO SINCE 2009, WE'VE BEEN ACTIVELY WORKING TO MAKE THIS, FOR EXAMPLE, PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR GIANT MINE REMEDIATION PROJECT.

WE'VE MADE A COMPENSATION CLAIM.

WE'VE WORKED WITH OTHER ORDERS OF GOVERNMENT TO SEEK FUNDING TOWARDS THIS.

NOW, THE ONE AREA THAT WE WERE SUCCESSFUL WAS IN GETTING DISASTER MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION FUNDING IN 2019.

WE WERE SUCCESSFUL, OF COURSE, THROUGH THE PARAMETERS OF THAT PROJECT OF GETTING 75% OF AT THAT TIME THE TOTAL ANTICIPATED PROJECT COST, WHICH WAS ESTIMATED THEN TO BE $34 MILLION, BUT WE FAST FORWARD TO 2023 AND PROJECT COST ESTIMATES HAVE ALMOST DOUBLED FROM 34 MILLION TO 57 RIGHT NOW, WHICH MEANS THAT THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT THAT THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HAS INCREASED.

THIS IS BEYOND OUR CAPACITY, AND SO WE ARE SEEKING AN EXTENSION FROM THE 2028 DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION TO 2032 SO THAT WE CAN CONSIDER OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES TO ADDRESS THIS INCREASED PROJECT COST.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. GREENCORN RIGHT NOW, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING, JUST TO ADD A LITTLE BIT WITH HIS EXPERT ANALYSIS, SINCE HE'S BEEN EATING, SLEEPING AND BREATHING THIS PROJECT FOR QUITE SOME TIME. CHRIS, OVER TO YOU.

THANK YOU, MISS MS. BASSI-KELLETT. JUST I GUESS TO ADD TO THAT IS SINCE WE'VE RECEIVED THESE UPDATED NUMBERS IN DECEMBER 2022, WE'VE BEEN CHEWING ON THIS QUITE A BIT AND LOOKING AT ALL OPTIONS AND AVENUES THAT WE CAN TAKE, AND WE'RE REALLY AT THE POINT NOW WHERE WE'VE TAKEN A RISK BASED APPROACH AND WE'RE GOING TO SEEK TO APPLY FOR THE EXTENSION.

THIS GIVES US A FOUR YEAR WINDOW TO CONTINUE TO ADVANCE WORK ON SEVERAL FRONTS.

IT ALSO KEEPS OUR CURRENT FUNDING IN PLACE WHILE CONTINUING TO SEEK THOSE LEVELS OF FUNDING FROM OTHER ORDERS OF GOVERNMENT.

YOU CAN SEE AT THE END OF THE MEMO THERE'S A FIVE BULLET LIST THERE.

IT ALSO GIVES US TIME TO ADVANCE THE REGULATORY APPROVALS AND KEEP THE DESIGN WORK MOVING IN THE ANTICIPATION OF RECEIVING FUNDING.

IT ALSO GIVES US THE TIME TO REVIEW CURRENT RISK DATA FROM THE GIANT MINE REMEDIATION PROJECT, WHICH WAS A CONSIDERATION WHEN CHOOSING THE WATER SOURCE IN 2018.

IT ALSO GIVES US A CHANCE TO REVISE THE EVALUATION MATRIX COMPLETED IN 2018 WITH CURRENT WITH CURRENT DATA FROM BOTH A RISK ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE AND A FINANCIAL

[01:10:03]

SO THIS IS OUR BEST PATH FORWARD AT THIS TIME.

YEAH, SO I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AND YEAH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR FEQUET. PLEASE.

THANKS, MADAM MAYOR, AND THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION, STAFF.

I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS, IS THERE A DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING THIS EXTENSION? UNDERSTANDING THAT RIGHT NOW IT'S STILL 2028.

IT'S ONLY 2023, AND OR IS THERE A DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING A NEW APPLICATION? OR A CHANGE TO OUR CURRENT APPLICATION.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

WE'RE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON THE TIMELINE, BUT THEY HAVE INDICATED TO US THAT THERE ARE MANY COMMUNITIES WHO WERE AWARDED FUNDING WHO ARE IN THE SAME BOAT AS WE ARE THAT ARE WORKING TO MEET THE TIMELINES, GIVEN THE CONTEXT HAS CHANGED RADICALLY SINCE 2019.

MR. GREENCORN, ANYTHING TO ADD? THANKS FOR THE QUESTION.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS NO CURRENT DEADLINE ON THE EXTENSION TO 2032.

THERE WOULD BE A DEADLINE ON APPLYING FOR FUTURE FUNDING OR ADDITIONAL FUNDING, BUT IT COMES WITH SEVERAL CAVEATS THAT HAVE QUITE A BIT OF RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THEM THAT WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO TAKE AT THIS TIME.

$25 MILLION IN THE BANK IS BETTER THAN $0 IN THE BANK, AND THAT'S WHAT WE COULD BE FACED WITH, WITH A NEW APPLICATION AND THE PARAMETERS DICTATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AROUND THAT.

THANKS FOR THAT RESPONSE.

CAN YOU CLARIFY? I TRIED MY BEST TO SIPHON THROUGH ALL THE MATERIALS, BUT IT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME IN THE 2018 PRESENTATION DECK [INAUDIBLE] WHEN IT WAS EVALUATING THE TWO OPTIONS OF THE WATER SOURCES, THE BAY VERSUS THE RIVER, WHETHER THE ARSENIC TREATMENT PROCESS WAS INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION OF THE BAY AS THE WATER SOURCE.

DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION OR CAN YOU GET THAT INFORMATION, IF YOU DON'T, ABOUT WHETHER THE ARSENIC TREATMENT PROCESS WAS CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE BAY OPTION OR NOT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. MR. GREENCORN.

YES, WHEN EVALUATING BOTH OPTIONS, IT WAS EVALUATING THE RIVER, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE REPLACING THE SUBMARINE WATERLINE ITSELF AND THAT INFRASTRUCTURE UPSTREAM PLACING OUR WATER SOURCE UPSTREAM OF GIANT.

IT ALSO INCLUDED THE OPTION OF DRAWING FROM THE BAY ASSOCIATED WITH THE BAY WAS CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES FOR THE INCLUSION OF ARSENIC TREATMENT IN THE CURRENT WATER TREATMENT PLANT, WHICH HAD ITS OWN SET OF, I GUESS, COMPLICATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS.

THANK YOU. SO THE LIFECYCLE COSTING THAT WAS PART OF THE EVALUATION INCLUDED JUST TO CONFIRM ARSENIC TREATMENT PROCESS WITHIN THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT ALONG WITH DRAWING WATER FROM THE BAY? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

YES, IT INCLUDED THE ARSENIC SCRUBBERS.

MR. GREENCORN? THAT IS CORRECT.

I THINK IT WAS A CAPITAL COST OF $9 MILLION OR AN OVERALL LIFE CYCLE COST OF UPWARDS OF $18 MILLION IF MEMORY SERVES, BUT I'D HAVE TO REVISIT THOSE SPECIFIC NUMBERS, BUT IT WAS CONSIDERED WHEN EVALUATING BOTH OPTIONS BECAUSE THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT, I THINK 15% OF THE--IF THAT'S SIGNIFICANT--PERCENT OF THE EVALUATION MATRIX ITSELF.

THANKS FOR THAT. YEAH, AND RECOGNIZING THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION IN THAT EVALUATION AND THAT STUDY.

WHEN I LOOKED AT THE DECISION MAKING SLIDE AS PART OF THAT PRESENTATION, IT SEEMED LIKE THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE THAT SET OPTION ONE ABOVE AND BEYOND OPTION TWO IS A BETTER CHOICE.

WASN'T THE LIFE CYCLE COSTING BECAUSE IT WAS ACTUALLY A THIRD MORE EXPENSIVE, BUT IT WAS THE FACT THAT IF SOMETHING SHOULD HAPPEN IN THE LOW RISK, LOW CHANCE THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED AT GIANT MINE, THAT IT WASN'T CERTAIN WHETHER THE BAY AND I GUESS THE ARSENIC [INAUDIBLE] PROCESS WOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE DEALING WITH THE ARSENIC AND BEING ABLE TO OBVIOUSLY PROVIDE SAFE DRINKING WATER. CAN STAFF COMMENT ON WHAT THEIR UNDERSTANDING WAS OF THE PREVIOUS DECISION FROM COUNCIL, I GUESS TO

[01:15:03]

MS. BASSI-KELLETT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

SO THIS ANALYSIS CAME FORWARD IN 2018, WHILE THERE WAS A LOT OF OTHER CONCURRENT WORK UNDERWAY.

CERTAINLY WE KNOW THAT THE YELLOWKNIVES DENE FIRST NATION HAVE BEEN VERY STRONG ADVOCATES AROUND THE SAFETY AND THE LEGACY OF GIANT MINE, WHICH IS AN ONGOING FACTOR.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE QUALITATIVE RISK ASSESSMENT THAT WAS BEING DONE TO ASSESS SOME OF THE RISK WAS ALSO UNDERWAY.

SO A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FACTORS, A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT MADE THIS FLUID BUT WERE VERY DEFINITELY A DETERMINING FACTOR FOR COUNCIL AT THE TIME.

I'LL ASK MR. GREENCORN TO ELABORATE.

SURE, JUST TO ADD TO THAT, WHEN THE EVALUATION MATRIX WAS DEVELOPED, IT WAS DEVELOPED, I BELIEVE, AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL OF THE TIME, AND IT WAS DEPENDENT ON SEVERAL THINGS.

COST WAS ONE OF THEM WAS 15%, BUT ONE OF THE MAJOR FACTORS WAS RISK, AND IT WAS DETERMINED AT THE TIME THROUGH THAT, I GUESS, RIGOROUS MATRIX EVALUATION BY OUR CONSULTING FIRM AT THE TIME THAT BASED ON ALL OF THESE THINGS AND THE EVALUATION MATRIX AND THE WEIGHTS ACCORDING TO WHAT WE APPROVED IN THE MATRIX, THEN IT ENDED UP DETERMINING THAT THE WATER, THE RIVER SOURCE WAS THE BEST OPTION FORWARD.

WHILE THERE WAS ONLY A TEN POINT DIFFERENCE IN THERE BETWEEN A SCORE OF 60 AND A SCORE OF 50, THAT WAS AT SOME POINT WE HAD TO MAKE A DECISION.

SO WE ALSO HAD THAT BACKED UP BY A THIRD PARTY REVIEW FROM A CONSULTANT FROM DILLON CONSULTING WHO LOOKED AT THE EVALUATION MATRIX, THE CRITERIA AND THE DATA AT THE TIME, AND THEY CONFIRMED THAT WAS THE BEST PATH FORWARD GIVEN ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AT THAT TIME.

THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION , AND THAT'S HELPFUL. SO YEAH, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT COST OBVIOUSLY WAS A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THAT EVALUATION MATRIX, 15% LIKE YOU SAID, MR. GREENCORN.

SO THE REASON I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE, LIKE YOU SAID, WE HAVE 25 MILLION IN THE BANK, WHICH IS GREAT, BUT IF IT'S 25 MILLION IN THE BANK AND IT'S $100 MILLION PROJECT THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD, IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MATTER.

SO WHAT I WAS TRYING TO, I GUESS LEAD US TOWARDS INFORMATIVELY IS IF THE OPTION TO SOURCE WAS ABOUT TWO THIRDS OF THE COST AND WE'RE ALLOWED TO CHANGE OUR APPLICATION, WHICH THE LETTER FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO IMPLY THAT THEY APPROVED CHANGES TO SCOPES OF PROJECTS THAT ARE APPROVED UNDER THE FUNDING.

MY QUESTION IS WHETHER STAFF'S TIME IS MAYBE BEST SPENT SUBMITTING THIS EXTENSION TO THE CURRENT PROJECT OR WE REALLY NEED TO EVALUATE UNDER THE CURRENT COSTS THIS THESE OPTIONS AGAIN, AND I GUESS I'M CURIOUS STAFF'S THOUGHT ON THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, IF WE HAVE 75% OF FUNDING FOR A PROJECT THAT WE CAN'T AFFORD, IT DOESN'T MATTER, AND I GUESS I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE THE PRICE TAG HAS BALLOONED HERE OR $20 MILLION THAT LIKE YOU SAID, WE'D HAVE TO PUT ON TAXPAYERS AND WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO DO THAT.

SHOULDN'T WE BE LOOKING AT THE OTHER OPTION BEFORE WE ASK FOR AN EXTENSION TO THE CURRENT PROJECT? SHOULDN'T WE BE EVALUATING WHETHER THE OTHER OPTION MIGHT ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO BE AFFORDED UNDER THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED? IF WE CHANGED OR APPLIED TO CHANGE OUR PROJECT [INAUDIBLE].

YEAH, AND THE THING IN THE MEMO IS THAT STAFF WAS GOING TO SEEK THIS EXTENSION TO 2032 TO THEN ALSO GO THROUGH FIVE OTHER DIFFERENT STEPS.

SO ONE OF IT BEING REVISITING THE EVALUATION MATRIX AND THEN REVIEWING THE CURRENT RISK DATA FROM THE GIANT MINE PROJECT, BECAUSE IF YOU DO TAKE A LOOK AT THE TWO OPTION ONE, THE RIVER AND OPTION TWO, THE BAY, THE TWO DIFFERENCES, OPTION ONE, THE RIVER SCORES HIGHER ON SUSCEPTIBILITY TO RAW WATER QUALITY CHANGES, WHICH WAS ABOUT AN OPTION TWO, THE BAY HAS A LOWER SCORE AND THAT WAS IF THERE WAS A LEAK OF THE TAILINGS POND, BUT THEN SINCE THIS HAS HAPPENED, THERE'S A NEW RISK DATA FROM THE GIANT MINE REMEDIATION PROJECT WHICH MIGHT CHANGE THAT VARIABLE, AND THEN THE OTHER CHANGE OR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO OPTIONS IS THE 25 YEAR LIFE CYCLE COST, WHICH AGAIN, OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO COULD CHANGE BASED ON THESE NEW NUMBERS.

SO ONCE STAFF HAVE THAT INFORMATION, LIKE YOU SAY, THEN THE NEXT STEP MIGHT BE TO SEE ABOUT SEEKING A CHANGE.

I'M NOT SURE IF DMAF WOULD NECESSARILY ALLOW US TO CHANGE FROM OPTION ONE TO OPTION TWO.

HOWEVER, OPTION TWO DOES STILL MEAN THAT WE NEED TO PUT THIS IN DUE TO THE GIANT MINE PROJECT.

SO THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD DO SOME PRETTY GOOD WORDSMITHING

[01:20:04]

MS. BASSI-KELLETT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

CERTAINLY THE PURPOSE OF THE EXTENSION IS RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO GET VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWERS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON THIS.

IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED APPLICATION PROCESS.

SO WE UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY DON'T SAY, SURE, YEAH, CHANGE HORSES MIDSTREAM OR YEAH, YOU CAN AMEND THIS OR CHANGE THAT.

IT'S BEEN VERY COMPLICATED TO DEAL WITH THEM.

THE SECOND PART OF THIS IS WE HAVE MANY PARTNERS INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT, SO IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF THE CITY GOING OFF AND DOING THIS UNILATERALLY.

WE'VE GOT OTHER PARTNERS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO DEAL WITH.

SO THE INTENTION OF THE TIME EXTENSION IS TO GIVE US THAT TIME TO LOOK AT MORE UP TO DATE INFORMATION AS MR. GREENCORN LAID OUT AND TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH PARTNERS ON ANY PROPOSAL THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO BRING FORWARD.

MR. GREENCORN, YOU'RE OUR EXPERT.

OVER TO YOU FOR OTHER INFORMATION.

THANKS. YEAH, I THINK THAT SUMMED IT UP QUITE WELL AND GETS TO THE POINT, I THINK I THINK AND HE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT COUNCILLOR FORGET IS GETTING ABSOLUTELY FINANCIAL IS ALWAYS EXCUSE ME A CONSIDERATION, BUT THERE ARE CONSIDERATIONS AND WE NEED THE TIME BASICALLY TO EVALUATE THOSE AND GO THROUGH THE OPTIONS. WHILE THE SCOPE DOES SAY THERE'S ROOM FOR SOME SCOPE CHANGE UNDER THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IT WAS QUITE A RIGOROUS PROCESS AND OUR PROJECT WAS EVALUATED AGAINST A VERY SPECIFIC SET OF CRITERIA AND IT WAS BASED ON A PIPELINE.

SO I WOULD THINK THAT IF WE WERE TO COMPLETELY CHANGE OUR SCOPE AND TO ELIMINATE THE PIPELINE AND BASICALLY ALTER COURSE, I WOULD THINK THAT THEY WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH THAT AND WOULD WANT US TO REAPPLY UNDER A SEPARATE APPLICATION, BUT WE'D HAVE TO DETERMINE THAT PATH FORWARD.

SO IN SAYING ALL THAT, I THINK THIS IS THE BEST PATH FORWARD.

IT GIVES US THE TIME TO ADVANCE THOSE THINGS.

IT GIVES US TIME TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL WITH MORE IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS AND TO ADDRESS THE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE MEMO MS. BASSI-KELLETT JUST MENTIONED.

THANK YOU.

THANKS FOR THAT, AND SO JUST TO CONFIRM, THERE IS NO DEADLINE, SHOULD WE NEED TO SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION OR A CHANGE TO OUR EXISTING APPLICATION? IF WE WANTED TO CANCEL OUR DMAF ONE AND PUT ALL OUR EGGS INTO THE BASKET OF TRYING TO GET DMAF THREE, WE WOULD HAVE TO GET THAT APPLICATION IN SIX WEEKS, I BELIEVE, MID-JULY, BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IT'LL BE A VERY QUICK DECISION THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MADE WITHOUT ALL OF THE INFORMATION AND THE DEADLINE FOR DMAF 3.0 IS JULY 20TH.

MANY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS HAVE DIFFERENT INCARNATIONS THAT HAPPEN AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

WE'VE SEEN THAT WITH RAPID HOUSING.

SO PERHAPS THERE WILL BE DIFFERENT INTAKES.

WE ALSO UNDERSTAND JUST TO LOOK AROUND AT THE STATE OF THE COUNTRY AT THIS POINT IN TIME BETWEEN FLOODS AND FIRES THAT WE KNOW THAT THERE'S TREMENDOUS UPTAKE FOR THIS PROGRAM AND A GREAT APPETITE TO ACCESS IT.

SO THERE WOULD BE THAT KIND OF PROCESS THAT WE'D NEED TO BE VERY AWARE OF AS WE WENT FORWARD.

THANK YOU, BUT NOT A PARTICULAR DEADLINE WHEN IT COMES TO REQUESTING AN EXTENSION, BUT IT DOES TAKE TIME TO ACTUALLY GET THE FEDS TO SIT DOWN AND CHANGE THE CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT.

SO THAT WOULD BE WHERE ADMIN'S LOOKING TO TRY TO GET SOME CLARITY ON THAT.

THANKS FOR THAT RESPONSE. SO TO CONFIRM, WE ARE NOT INTENDING TO APPLY BY THE JUNE DEADLINE FOR ADDITIONAL MONEY ON OUR NEW APPLICATION, AND WE ARE ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION AT THIS TIME SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A MORE FULSOME DISCUSSION ON THE OPTIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY DECIDED ON, BECAUSE THERE IS SOME NEW INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO POTENTIALLY MAKE THE SAME DECISION OR A DIFFERENT DECISION AT SOME NEAR POINT IN THE FUTURE, THAT'S THE INTENT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S CORRECT.

THERE IS NO SET DEADLINE FOR US TO ASK FOR THE EXTENSION, BUT WE WILL WANT TO WORK WITH THE FOLKS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DISASTER MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION FUND.

THERE IS A NEW INCARNATION OF THE FUND THAT'S OPEN THAT HAS A DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION OF JULY 20TH, BUT THAT IS FOR NEW APPLICANTS WHO ARE COMING FORWARD, NOT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE OR NOT FOR COMMUNITIES THAT ALREADY ARE ACCESSING THE ORIGINAL DMAF FUNDING.

THANK YOU. I'M GOOD FOR ROUND ONE.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR COCHRANE.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

CAN THE ADMINISTRATION SPEAK TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING, FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM THE OTHER ORDERS OF GOVERNMENT THAT WE ARE INTENDING TO APPLY, LOBBY OR SEEK? I KNOW IT'S EARLY, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY SORT OF STRATEGIC PLANNING GOING ON WITH THIS?

[01:25:05]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS.

SO MAYOR ALTY NAILED IT.

I MEAN, WE HAVE BEATEN THE BUSHES SINCE 2019 ON THIS, AND WE WERE VERY, VERY APPRECIATIVE WHEN DMAF CAME FORWARD WITH THE 26.8 MILLION OUT OF THE 34 WE NEED, LEAVING US, OF COURSE, TO COVER THE REMAINING EIGHT.

SO WE HAVE GONE TO GNWT.

WE KNOW THAT GNWT HAS GONE AND LOBBIED THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON OUR BEHALF.

WE PUT IN A COMPENSATION CLAIM TO SEEK TO GET FUNDING FOR THIS.

WE HAVE SOUGHT TO COLLABORATE WITH YELLOWKNIVES DENE.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT AVENUES THAT WE'VE TAKEN TO DATE.

WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT, RECOGNIZING THAT THE CONTEXT HAS CHANGED, THERE ARE DIFFERENT FACTORS AT PLAY THAT WE WANT TO REINFORCE AND REAFFIRM, SO WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE AS CREATIVE AS POSSIBLE TO SEE ABOUT OPTIONS FOR STACKING FEDERAL FUNDING, FOR UTILIZING OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE THAT COME IN THAT CAN ENSURE THAT IT'S NOT FALLING SOLELY ONTO TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF YELLOWKNIFE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR HENDRICKSEN, THEN COUNCILLOR WARBURTON.

THANK YOU, MAYOR ALTY.

SO OVERALL, I SUPPORT THE EXTENSION OF THE APPLICATION.

I MEAN IT GIVES ADMIN TIME TO WORK ON THE PIECES IDENTIFIED IN THE MEMO AND AS COUNCILLOR COCHRANE JUST SAID, GIVES COUNCIL TIME TO DO EVEN MORE LOBBYING WORK.

AS I MENTIONED WHEN THE MINISTER WAS HERE AS WELL, THE MINISTER OF FINANCE.

SO APOLOGIES AS I'M SURE THIS HAS BEEN ANSWERED FOR US BEFORE AND I KNOW IN THE 2019 MEMO IT SAYS THE PIPELINE HAS REACHED THE END OF ITS LIFE , BUT IT'S STILL PUMPING WATER WHETHER THAT'S GOOD OR BAD.

FROM YOUR EXPERT OPINION, WHAT IS THE LIKE "THIS THING WILL NOT PUMP WATER FOR US ANYMORE" LIFESPAN? IT'S A CRYSTAL BALL PROBABLY QUESTION BUT MS. BASSI-KELLETT MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK TO A FEW OF THE CHALLENGES [INAUDIBLE].

SO DEFINITELY A CRYSTAL BALL QUESTION AND WE LIKE TO BE ABLE TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF ALL OF OUR ASSETS AND CERTAINLY THAT'S THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND OUR ASSET MANAGEMENT APPROACH TO THE ASSETS THAT WE HAVE THAT ARE THERE IN PLACE TO ENABLE THE PROVISION OF THE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES AND CERTAINLY EXCELLENT QUALITY DRINKING WATER IS ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT YELLOWKNIFERS RELY ON US FOR.

SO IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT IT WAS REACHING END OF LIFE IN THE 2000--GOSH, EVEN ARGUE TO GO BACK AS FAR AS WHEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WAS BEING DONE OF THE GIANT MINE PROJECT IN 2009 THAT WE WOULD BE REACHING END OF LIFE SOON.

I WILL ASK MR. GREENCORN IF HE WOULD TAKE THIS ONE.

HE'S BEEN INVOLVED QUITE A BIT IN THINGS UP TO AND INCLUDING REMOVAL OF THE SPUR LINE THAT WE DID ON BEHALF OF OR AS A FAVOR TO THE GIANT MINE REMEDIATION PROJECT TO REMOVE THAT OFFSHOOT THAT WENT STRAIGHT TO GIANT MINE.

THE LINE IS THERE.

WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE HAPPEN IS THAT THERE'S A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE OF THE LINE.

THAT MEANS, OH, OKAY, WE'RE SCREWED.

NOW WE'RE TAKING WATER FROM THE BAY INDEFINITELY WITHOUT A PLAN B IN PLACE, BUT MR. GREENCORN, OVER TO YOU.

THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SOME HISTORY.

I GUESS WE DO BIANNUAL.

BIENNIAL? TWICE A YEAR. EVERY TWO YEARS.

SORRY. INSPECTIONS ON THE WATER LINES VIA QUALIFIED DIVERS.

WE'VE HAD SOME SMALL FAILURES AND LEAKS IN THE PAST.

THE BENEFIT IS, IS THAT IT'S JUST LEAKING RAW WATER INTO RAW WATER.

SO THERE'S NO MAJOR...

WE DON'T HAVE ANY INDICATIONS OF ANY MAJOR FAILURES AT THIS TIME.

HOWEVER, ONE OF OUR MORE SEASONED ENGINEERS, HE'S RETIRED NOW, MR. ROBERT BOON, WAS INVOLVED IN A PROJECT IN THE LATE 80S WHERE THEY TOOK TWO COUPONS OUT OF THE PIPELINE AND DID A FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ON IT, AND IT WAS CONCERNING AT THAT TIME THAT PIPE WAS STARTING TO FAIL.

NOW IT HASN'T FAILED YET.

IT MIGHT LIMP ALONG FOR ANOTHER TEN YEARS; WE DON'T REALLY KNOW.

I MEAN, THE BENEFIT THAT YELLOWKNIFE HAS THAT OTHER PLACES DON'T HAVE IS WE HAVE TWO PRISTINE SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER.

SO IF THERE IS A FAILURE, WE CAN DRAW FROM THE BAY, BUT IF IT HAPPENS IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT ANY OTHER PRECAUTIONS IN PLACE, THERE IS NO ARSENIC TREATMENT.

SO, THAT'S THE LONG AND SHORT OF THAT.

WHICH IS REQUIRED IF THERE'S A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE AT GIANT VERSUS EVERYDAY WATER.

IS THAT CORRECT? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

MR. GREENCORN? CORRECT. WE'VE BEEN COLLECTING MONTHLY WATER DATA FROM THE BAY FOR 20 YEARS, AND IT'S VERY LOW ON THE ARSENIC SCALE.

I THINK PEAK WE'VE HAD 2.4 AND THAT'S IN WATER COVER SEASON, AND THE MAXIMUM DRINKING WATER GUIDELINES IS TEN.

SO ON OUR WORST MONTH, WE'RE AT 20%.

SO I THINK GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE'RE WELL BELOW ONE LIKE 1.0.

SO THE WATER QUALITY ISSUE IS NOT A PROBLEM.

[01:30:04]

HOWEVER, WE STILL HAVE TWO PRISTINE DRINKING SOURCES, SO COUNCILLOR HENDRICKSEN.

YEP. NO, THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT CLARITY, AND YOU ANSWERED A COUPLE OF MY OTHER QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU, MAYOR ALTY, FOR MAKING SURE THAT CLARIFICATION WAS IN THERE FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD TOO.

WITH THE FUNDING, THIS IS A FUNDING QUESTION, I SUPPOSE.

SO WE ASKED FOR AN EXTENSION.

CAN WE SPEND ANY OF THE FUNDING THAT'S THERE? BECAUSE I KNOW FROM THE PRESENTATION A FEW MONTHS AGO PART OF IT IS YES, REPLACING THE PUMP HOUSE TWO, AND THE WATER LINE, BUT ALSO REPLACING PUMP HOUSE ONE AND THE INTAKE ON THE BAY. SO CAN THAT WORK? PUMP HOUSE ONE AND THE BAY INTAKE HAPPEN EVEN LIKE WITH THE EXTENSION OF THIS APPLICATION, CAN WE DO THAT WORK SO THAT SAY THE PIPELINE DOES FAIL IN THE FUTURE AND WE'RE DEPENDING ON BAY WATER, AT LEAST WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH AN OLD INTAKE.

YOU KNOW, AT LEAST WE'VE ALREADY GOT A NEW INTAKE BUILT AND READY TO GO, EVEN IF WE'RE STILL WORKING ON LONG TERM GOALS OF A SUBMARINE LINE.

IF THAT'S CLEAR.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

MR. GREENCORN, THANKS FOR THE QUESTION.

THE SHORT ANSWER IS WHAT WE WOULD EXPEND IN UPCOMING EXPENDITURES WOULD BE STRICTLY ON THE PLANNING, REGULATORY AND DESIGN ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT, AND WE EXPECT THAT TO TAKE ANOTHER AT LEAST YEAR ANYWAY JUST TO GET OUT OF REGULATORY, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TECHNICALLY, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TENDER A PROJECT WITHOUT HAVING FUNDING IN PLACE.

THAT'S A RISK THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE BECAUSE ONCE YOU'RE COMMITTED TO THAT, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

SO WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THOSE THINGS IN PHASING OF THE PROJECT IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION.

SO CAN WE DO THE PUMP HOUSES FIRST? DOES THE SUBMARINE WATER LINE HAVE TO COME FIRST? DOES PUMP HOUSE ONE COME BEFORE PUMP HOUSE TWO? ALL THESE THINGS ARE STILL BEING CONTEMPLATED.

SO I DON'T REALLY HAVE A SPECIFIC ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION OTHER THAN WE'RE STILL WORKING ON IT, BUT ALL COSTS TO DATE, EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE INCURRING TO DATE IS COVERED BY DMAF , IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

NO, THANKS FOR THAT, AND I GUESS THAT'S JUST DOWN THE LINE AS YOU'RE WORKING THROUGH THAT.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN, IS AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT TENDERING, CAN WE SPLIT UP THE PROJECT? IS THAT ALLOWED UNDER DMAF FUNDING OR NOT, WHERE WE DO THE PUMPHOUSE ONE AND THE INTAKE SEPARATE FROM THE PUMPHOUSE TWO AND THE PIPELINE? BECAUSE IF ONE CAN HAPPEN WITHOUT THE OTHER, IS THAT POSSIBLE? BUT I'LL STOP BELABORING THAT POINT FOR NOW.

SO THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THAT.

I GUESS JUST SORT OF BACK TO WHEN THE MINISTER OF FINANCE WAS HERE JUST A GENERAL COMMENT IS THAT I KNOW THAT A LOT OF I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE QUITE INVOLVED IN THE GIANT MINE REMEDIATION PROJECT AND COMMENTS ARE THE WATER SAVED, AND I GET THAT BUT AT THE SAME TIME, RISK ANALYSES THAT HAVE COME TOWARDS CITY COUNCIL HAVE COME FROM GIANT MINE REMEDIATION PROJECT, HAVE COME FROM THE FEDS OVER THE YEARS, HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THAT IN THE EVENT OF A CATASTROPHIC IMPACT, IS THAT REALLY SOMETHING WE WANT TO BE TAKING A RISK ON WITH OUR WATER SOURCE, ULTIMATELY, AND I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CLEARLY THE CITY IS WORKING ON LOBBYING ON.

SO I JUST THIS IS NOT SO MUCH FOR THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM AS I HOPE IF THIS IS REPORTED ON IN THE MEDIA THAT OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT HEAR THIS, THAT WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE THE DRINKING WATER FOR HALF THE TERRITORIAL POPULATION FOR THE YKDFN.

THE CITY IS A TOURISM HUB FOR THIS TERRITORY.

IF PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT TOURISM DESTINATIONS, ARE THEY GOING TO WANT TO COME TO A PLACE WHERE THEY EVEN IF WE KNOW THE WATER IS SAFE, WHERE THEY QUESTION IF THE WATER IS SAFE? ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT FACTORS LIKE THIS IS AN ECONOMIC AN ECONOMIC INVESTMENT FOR THE GNWT AND THE FEDS AS MUCH AS IT IS THE SAFE DRINKING WATER INVESTMENT. SO, AGAIN, I KNOW IT'S A BIT OF A HIGH HORSE THING FOR THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM, BUT I REALLY HOPE PEOPLE IN THE OUTSIDE OF THIS ROOM REALLY GET THAT MESSAGE OVER THE LONG RUN THAT THIS IS MORE THAN--IN THE LONG RUN, THIS IS GOING TO COST US WAY MORE ECONOMICALLY FOR THEM IF THEY DON'T INVEST IN THIS.

SO THANK YOU, MAYOR ALTY AND EVERYBODY ELSE FOR TAKING THAT MOMENT.

THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR WARBURTON, AND THEN COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST A QUICK RUNDOWN, IF I COULD, FOR ADMIN PLEASE, ON KIND OF WHERE WE APPLY FOR COMPENSATION VIA THE GIANT MINE.

WAS IT WATER LICENSE? WAS IT [INAUDIBLE] YOU SAID, WE APPLIED FOR COMPENSATION, BUT SPECIFICALLY WHERE DID WE APPLY? JUST TO REFRESH MY MEMORY.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

WE APPLIED AS PART OF THE GIANT MINE REMEDIATION PROJECT'S APPLICATION FOR THEIR WATER LICENSE.

WE HAD LOOKED AT PRECEDENTS THAT WERE DONE FOR OTHER APPLICATIONS.

THERE WAS ONE SOUTH ON THE SOUTH IN THE SOUTH SLAVE AREA AND CERTAINLY WE PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THAT.

I'LL SEE IF MS. THISTLE WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT.

THANKS. THAT ESSENTIALLY COVERS IT.

WE DID SECURE OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL TO ASSIST US BECAUSE THEY HAD THE EXPERTISE IN THESE TYPES OF APPLICATIONS TO THE MACKENZIE VALLEY LAND WATER BOARD, AND WE WERE NOT

[01:35:02]

THERE WAS ALSO THE MACKENZIE VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW BOARD AND TRYING TO GET THE PIPELINE ACTUALLY SCOPED INTO THE GIANT MINE PROJECT, THAT GIANT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPLACING THE SUBMARINE LINE AS WELL AS CLEANING UP, SINCE THIS IS A LEGACY ASSET OF THEIRS.

AWESOME. THANKS FOR THAT, AND I GUESS IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY, I GUESS, TO GO AS THEIR SCOPE HAS DRASTICALLY CHANGED, TO GO BACK AND LOOK AGAIN AT THIS WITH THEM? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. IN TERMS OF COMPENSATION, I DON'T THINK THERE IS, BUT I'LL SEE IF MS. THISTLE WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND ANY FURTHER.

NO, I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT ACTION.

WE MADE A FULL BLOWN EFFORT IN THE FIRST APPLICATION AND IT WAS UNSUCCESSFUL.

IT WOULD BE QUITE EXPENSIVE AND I THINK FUTILE TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONAL SUCH CLAIMS THROUGH THE PROCESS.

THERE'S NOT REALLY THE OPPORTUNITY.

SO WE'D HAVE TO REALLY BE GOING OUTSIDE THE REGULAR PROCESS, WHICH WOULD EVEN RAISE THE BAR THAT MUCH HIGHER, AND AT THE TIME WE DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS NO LEGITIMATE CHANCE OF SUCCESS TO MAKE A JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION BECAUSE THE DECISION WAS PROPERLY WRITTEN.

THANK YOU. AWESOME.

THANKS, [INAUDIBLE] AND POLITICS.

OKAY. EXACTLY.

COUNCILLOR MCGURK. YEAH, THANK YOU.

I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION.

THIS KEEPS COMING INTO MY HEAD.

DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY SORT OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT PLAN OR SOME SORT OF STRATEGY AROUND IF THERE IS A CONTAMINATION BECAUSE I IMAGINE THAT A BREACH THAT IS SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH THAT ANY SORT OF ARSENIC SCRUBBERS THAT WE HAVE WOULD BE QUITE WOULD HAVE QUITE THE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT OUTSIDE OF JUST THE DRINKING WATER CONVERSATION.

SO DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FOR THE CITY? I THINK TO BE CLEAR, THE POINT I'M KIND OF GETTING AT IS IF THERE WAS A BREACH IN THE WATER LINE AND WE WERE DRAWING FROM THE BAY, DOES IT REALLY MATTER THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE DRINKING SOURCE WHEN WE MIGHT ALL BE EVACUATING? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANKS VERY MUCH, AND I THINK COUNCILLOR MCGURK KIND OF NAILED IT THERE.

WE SEE THAT THERE'S AND CERTAINLY ALL REPORTS FROM THE GIANT MINE REMEDIATION TEAM INDICATE THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF A BREACH IS VERY, VERY SMALL, BUT THE FACT THAT IF THERE WERE ONE, IT WOULD HAVE MASSIVE IMPLICATIONS.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DO THINK ABOUT.

I'LL SEE IF MR. GREENCORN WANTS TO ELABORATE ON ANY OF THE THOUGHT PROCESSES AROUND ARSENIC SCRUBBERS AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE MIGHT SEEK TO MITIGATE.

I'D LIKE TO ALSO, AS COUNCILLOR HENDRICKSEN SAID, I'D LIKE TO GET ON RECORD HERE AND SAY THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN FOR THAT TO OCCUR.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE WAS A BREACH AT GIANT, WE WOULD ALSO HAVE TO CONCURRENTLY HAVE A FAILURE OF OUR EXISTING PIPELINE.

SO THE TWO OF THOSE THINGS HAPPENING TOGETHER ARE EVEN SLIMMER IN MY OPINION AT THIS POINT.

IT'S ALSO A VERY DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO KNOW OR ASSUME THE DETAILS OF THE BREACH, HOW MUCH, WHAT VOLUME, LIKE HOW MUCH WAS ACTUALLY RELEASED INTO THE BAY, WHAT IS THE, I GUESS CURRENT IN THE BAY AND WHERE DOES IT TAKE IT ALL THOSE DIFFERENT LIKE WATER ASPECTS AND MAKING THOSE ASSUMPTIONS, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THE WORST CASE SCENARIO HAPPENS, AND IF WORST CASE SCENARIO HAPPENS, I'M NOT SURE THAT ANY ARSENIC TREATMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO REMOVE THAT LEVEL OF CONTAMINATION, AND THERE'S PROBABLY A LARGER CONVERSATION IN THE CITY HAPPENING AT THAT POINT.

SO I'M NOT SURE THAT PUTS YOUR OR ANYONE ELSE'S MIND AT EASE, BUT I FEEL FAIRLY CONFIDENT IN SAYING THAT A LOT OF THINGS WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN IN ORDER FOR THAT, I GUESS, COMPLETE DISASTER SITUATION TO OCCUR.

YEAH, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE PART OF EMERGENCY PLANNING, WHICH OUTLINES ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND US COMING TOGETHER.

SO NOT NECESSARILY HAVING THAT TACTICAL PLAN ON THE PAGE RIGHT NOW, BUT OUR TEAMS WORK TOGETHER FREQUENTLY TO ADDRESS ANY THREAT THAT YELLOWKNIFE MAY HAVE.

YEAH, NO, THAT'S GREAT.

I MEAN, I GUESS ALSO TO BE CLEAR, I'M ASKING IT IN TERMS OF MORE OF IF THERE IS A BREACH THEN AND WE'RE ALL LEAVING, THEN IT'S KIND OF LIKE WE CAN JUST DRAW FROM THE BAY [CHUCKLING] BECAUSE WE'LL LEAVE IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG, BUT NO, I APPRECIATE THE CLARITY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES, PLEASE. THANKS, MADAM MAYOR.

DO WE HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ARE DOING?

[01:40:03]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

TO OUR KNOWLEDGE RIGHT NOW, BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD WITH OFFICIALS, THEY ARE HEARING FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE SEEKING EXTENSIONS THAT ARE ENCOURAGING, THAT ARE ENCOUNTERING THE SAME ISSUES THAT WE ARE.

SO WE DON'T KNOW IF OTHERS ARE MAKING THE DECISION TO TERMINATE THEIR FUNDING AND APPLY FOR DMAF 3.0, BUT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE DMAF OFFICIALS THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE SAME BOAT THAT WE ARE.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR FOR MYSELF AND THE PUBLIC CHOOSING THIS EXTENSION RATHER THAN WITHDRAWING AND APPLYING FOR 3.0 MEANS THAT WE'RE CHOOSING THE LOW RISK, WE HAVE 25 MILLION IN THE BANK VERSUS THE GAMBLE ZERO VERSUS MORE FUNDING, AND THAT IS SORT OF CHOOSING A ROAD, AND THE ONLY OPTION TO GET MORE FUNDING WOULD BE SOME SORT OF DMAF 4.0 MAYBE COMING IN THE FUTURE.

THANK YOU.

IT IS SOMETHING ALSO THAT FCM ADVOCATES FOR EVERY YEAR AT THE FEDERAL BUDGET TIME IS THAT THE FEDS CONTINUE TO SUPPORT DMAF AND THAT THEY INCREASE THE FUNDING POT IN THERE. SO WE'LL, THROUGH OUR ROLE AT FCM, CONTINUE TO LOBBY ON THAT FRONT.

I HAD A QUESTION.

SO THIS IS JUST CLASS D ESTIMATES.

WE'RE NOT EVEN AT--SORRY. OH, SORRY, COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

YEAH. YEAH. SORRY I WASN'T ALL DONE.

OKAY, GO FOR IT.

SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO OUR ONGOING COSTS? JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE DECISION OR THE RECOMMENDATION THE ADMINISTRATION'S BROUGHT FORWARD TO OUR ONGOING COSTS, IF WE WERE TO WITHDRAW THE EXISTING APPLICATION AND APPLY FOR A NEW ONE, WOULD THE CITY BE ON THE HOOK FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE ALREADY SPENT AND WOULD SPEND GOING FORWARD IN THE FURTHER DESIGN WORK? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND JUST BEFORE I ASK MR. GREENCORN TO RESPOND TO THAT, I WILL GET BACK TO YOUR OTHER COMMENT THAT YOU MADE, AND SO THIS OPTION THAT WE'RE PROPOSING BUYS US TIME TO LOOK AT A RANGE OF OPTIONS, AND IT'S MAXIMIZING THE FLEXIBILITY THAT WE HAVE.

IT DOES PRESUME THAT THERE WOULD BE FUNDING, THAT IF WE WERE TO DECIDE THAT WAS AN OPTIMAL WAY TO GO ABOUT SEEKING OUT THE FUNDING THAT WE NEED TO COVER OFF THE ADDITIONAL COSTS IF WE WERE TO SEEK OUT DMAF 4.0.

THAT, OF COURSE HAS RISKS TO IT AS WELL, BUT WE WOULD BE ASSESSING BASED ON WHAT ARE THE BEST OPTIONS OPEN TO US.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP ALL OF OUR OPTIONS OPEN AT THIS POINT IN TIME WITH THIS RESPONSE.

I WILL TURN NOW YOUR YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE ELIGIBILITY OF FUNDING TO MR. GREENCORN TO TALK TO THE COSTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY INCURRED.

THANKS FOR THE QUESTION.

IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING FROM OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH DMAF OFFICIALS THAT IF WE STAY ON THE PATH WE'RE CURRENTLY ON, ALL OF OUR COSTS ARE COVERED BECAUSE THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY COVERED UNDER THAT APPLICATION.

IF WE WERE TO DRAMATICALLY CHANGE COURSE AND MAKE AN APPLICATION, WHICH WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING, WE COULD BE FORFEITING FUNDING AND WE WOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR TOTAL COST TO DATE, WHICH IS IN THE REALM OF $1.48 MILLION.

SO THAT WOULD BE ON THE CITY TO BEAR, NOT 75% FUNDED, IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, AND IF THERE'S A DECISION MADE IN THE FUTURE, IF THERE ISN'T ENOUGH FUNDING SECURED AND WE HAVE TO GO THE WAY OF DRAWING FROM THE BAY AND THAT CHANGES THE SCOPE OF THAT PROJECT THAT I'M ASSUMING ALSO MEANS THAT THIS DMAF FUNDING, WE WOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR ALL OF THE COSTS UP TO DATE AND IN THE FUTURE IF WE CHANGE THE SCOPE [INAUDIBLE].

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YES, WE BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE THE CASE UNDER THE CURRENT TERMS OF OUR PROPOSAL THAT WE PUT IN AND WHAT WE WERE APPROVED FOR.

I'LL ASK MR. GREENCORN IF HE'D LIKE TO ELABORATE.

NO, THAT'S CORRECT.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD.

I HAD ONE LAST ONE.

IS THERE SORT OF A OR HAS ADMINISTRATION SORT OF REVIEWED IT? IF THERE'S A TIPPING POINT, LIKE IF WE GET TO SOME POINT, I DON'T KNOW, HALFWAY THROUGH 2024 OR SOMETHING, WE HAVEN'T SECURED ANY MORE FUNDING.

THE CITY IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY 30 PLUS MILLION TO DO THE PIPELINE TO THE RIVER.

IS THERE SOME SORT OF DECISION MATRIX AS TO WHEN WE NEED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THAT PLAN OR ARE WE NOT THERE YET IN TERMS OF YEAH

[01:45:04]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE QUESTION.

A LOT OF IT COMES DOWN TO THOSE FIVE ITEMS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE MEMO.

SO ABSOLUTELY, THE COST ARE A BIG, BIG DRIVER FOR US.

THEY'RE DRIVING A LOT OF WHAT THE REASON WE'RE BRINGING THIS FORWARD RIGHT NOW, BUT THERE'S ALSO SOME OTHER TECHNICAL WORK THAT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO PURSUE.

WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR PARTNERS ON THIS AS WELL.

SO THERE'S A MYRIAD OF THINGS THAT WE WILL BE LOOKING AT, BUT THOSE FIVE ARE VERY KEY WITH, AS YOU'VE POINTED OUT, FINANCE AND BEING ABLE TO SECURE THE FUNDING REQUIRED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS WHATEVER OPTION IT IS THAT IS BEST FOR US IS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO AFFORD.

MR. GREENCORN, ANYTHING TO ADD? YEAH, I THINK ALL OF THAT WILL COME FORWARD IN AN, I GUESS, PLANNED AND CONTROLLED MANNER ONCE WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE BREATHING ROOM ON THE SCHEDULE SIDE OF THINGS, WHICH IS GREAT.

IT'S GREAT TO HAVE THAT OPTION BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE'RE NOT COMFORTABLE.

WE WEREN'T COMFORTABLE BRINGING FORWARD COUNCIL THE OPTION OF DMAF 3.0 BECAUSE IT DOES FORFEIT THE FUNDING.

IF IT DIDN'T FORFEIT THE FUNDING, AND WE COULD JUST TACK ON.

THAT'S OBVIOUSLY WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING, BUT THAT'S NOT THE DETAILS OF THE PROGRAM.

WE WOULD HAVE TO FORFEIT OUR FUNDING APPLY UNDER A NEW DMAF APPLICATION IN A VERY SHORT TIMELINE.

THE LAST DMAF APPLICATION TOOK THE BETTER PART OF FOUR MONTHS TO DO THE ANALYSIS AND THE REQUIREMENTS.

IT'S JUST NOT A DRIVER'S LICENSE APPLICATION, RIGHT? IT'S QUITE LARGE AND EXTENSIVE.

SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'RE DOING THIS PATH AND IT COULD COME TO THAT POINT.

THE OTHER THING THAT I'D LIKE TO MENTION IS THAT NOT ONLY WILL WE BE LOOKING AT FINANCIAL SUPPORT FROM OTHER ORDERS OF GOVERNMENT, BUT EVEN JUST A CHANGE IN FEDERAL STANCE ON STACKING FUNDING.

SO MAYBE THAT'LL BE AN OPTION MOVING FORWARD, BUT THESE ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT WILL TAKE FORWARD AND WE'LL TRY TO ADVANCE AND EVENTUALLY IT WILL COME BACK TO COUNCIL REGARDLESS AND THERE'LL BE A DECISION POINT AT THAT TIME WITH A MUCH MORE, I GUESS, FULSOME SET OF DATA AND UPDATED DATA TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT WE DON'T HAVE TODAY.

THANK YOU.

UNDERSTOOD, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

FOR MYSELF, CLASS D.

SO THAT'S STILL PLUS OR MINUS 25%.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU.

I BELIEVE SO. MR. GREENCORN.

CLASS D TYPICALLY IS PLUS OR MINUS 50%.

OKAY, WELL, 25% WAS GOING TO GROW THE PROJECT FROM 57 TO 71 WITH THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION GROWING TO 45, BUT PLUS OR MINUS, YEAH, WE'VE STILL GOT A LOT OF WAYS TO GO TO CLASS A ESTIMATE, WHICH WOULD BE A COUPLE OF YEARS AWAY, TOO.

APPRECIATE ADMINISTRATION BRING THIS FORWARD, SUPPORTIVE OF THE RECOMMENDATION.

ALSO REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THE REVISED EVALUATION MATRIX USING THE NEW RISK DATA FROM THE GIANT MINE TEAM, AND THEN OF COURSE WITH THIS NEW FINANCIAL AS WELL, BECAUSE THAT OPTION ONE AND OPTION TWO WERE PRETTY CLOSE.

JUST A COUPLE POINTS OFF BACK IN 2018-19 WHEN WE DID THIS WORK.

SO YEAH, HAVING THAT WILL BE GOOD INFORMATION.

DOES ADMINISTRATION NEED ANY FUNDING TO DO THAT OR CAN IT BE DONE WITHIN YOUR CURRENT BUDGET? MS. BASSI-KELLETT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

WE'RE GOING TO SEEK TO DO THAT WITHIN OUR EXISTING, BUT IF THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS GOING FORWARD INTO BUDGET 2024, THEN WE WILL INCLUDE THEM FOR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

YEAH, DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY FUTURE DECISIONS ARE MADE--EVEN IF WE'RE CONTINUING DOWN THIS PATH--IT'S GOT TO BE EYES WIDE OPEN BECAUSE THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION WILL PROBABLY ALSO EXCEED OUR DEBT LIMIT.

SO THAT'S A PRETTY BIG ITEM.

SECOND ROUND OF QUESTIONS I'VE GOT [INAUDIBLE].

SORRY. COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. [CHUCKLING] THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I JUST WANT TO ALSO SAY THAT I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE EXTENSION GOING FORWARD.

IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE WITH THE LIMITED OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE.

JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHAT IS THE CONTINGENCY IF THE EXTENSION IS DENIED? I KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH DMAF OFFICIALS WITH INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THE EXTENSIONS HAVE BEEN GRANTED ACROSS CANADA, BUT WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENS IF IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

WE'LL CONTINUE TO WORK TOWARDS THIS WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT WE HAVE, BUT I WILL ASK MR. GREENCORN IF HE COULD SPEAK TO SOME OF OUR OPTIONS AROUND PRIORITIZING.

[01:50:01]

YOU CAN'T GET BLOOD FROM A STONE.

I COULD USE TONS OF ANALOGIES ON THIS, BUT IF THE MONEY ISN'T THERE, IT JUST ISN'T THERE.

SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT IF THE FEDS WEREN'T FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WASN'T AMENABLE TO A PROJECT EXTENSION, THEY COULD CHOOSE TO OPT OUT OF OUR CURRENT CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT BASED ON OUR FAILED OBLIGATION, SO TO SPEAK.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY COULD LEGITIMATELY PUT THAT ON US, GIVEN THE WHAT WE'RE SEEING ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND IN THE SECTOR FOR ESCALATED COSTS.

SO, I FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT IN AN EXTENSION AT THIS POINT, AND THAT AGAIN, GIVES US SOME BREATHING ROOM.

I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY WHILE I'VE GOT THE MIC BACK TO WALK BACK MY 50%.

IT IS ON THE HIGH END SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 20 AND 35%, BUT REGARDLESS, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE CLASS A ESTIMATE IS, THE MARKET WILL DETERMINE WHAT THE PROJECT IS COST.

SO WE MIGHT TENDER THIS AND IT COMES IN AT LESS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR AND THANKS, CHRIS.

ALSO, WHAT WOULD BE THE TIMELINE WHEN WE WOULD BE INFORMED IF THE EXTENSION IS GRANTED? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK THE TIMELINE IS REALLY ONE THAT WE'RE ON THEIR SCHEDULE ON THIS ONE.

WE HAVE BROACHED IT WITH THEM.

THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS THAT OUR TEAM HAS BEEN HAVING WITH OFFICIALS.

THEY SURE LOVE TO DO THINGS VERBALLY.

THEY HATE TO PUT STUFF IN WRITING, IT SEEMS, AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

SO I THINK THEY ARE GENUINELY SEEKING TO UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE AND MAGNITUDE OF WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH.

SO WE'VE HAD PRELIMINARY CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM.

OBVIOUSLY AFTER THIS DISCUSSION TODAY, WE'LL BE MAKING IT VERY MUCH MORE PUSHING ON THIS, AND I KNOW WE'VE GOT MEETINGS COMING UP LATER THIS WEEK, SO CAN'T SAY FOR CERTAINTY WHAT THAT TIMELINE WOULD BE, BUT WE ARE HOPING THAT IT WILL BE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR MCGURK.

I HOPE THAT YOU'RE TAKING DETAILED MINUTES OF THOSE MEETINGS.

I GUESS I'M CURIOUS IF WE CAN APPLY FOR A DIFFERENT PROJECT UNDER DMAF.

JUST HEARING LIKE THE EXTENSION OF THIS COULD JUST APPLY TO INSTALL THE ARSENIC SCRUBBERS IN THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT UNDER A DIFFERENT APPLICATION.

I KNOW IT'S KIND OF IT'S STILL A TIGHT TIMELINE, BUT I'M MORE OF A CURIOSITY MAYBE AT THIS POINT.

DMAF HAS SOME PRETTY YOU'VE GOT TO COME IN WITH SOME PRETTY BIG PROJECTS.

LIKE DMAF ONE YOUR PROJECT HAD TO BE OVER 20 MILLION, SO DMAF TWO THE CITY THROUGH THE NWTAC WAS SUCCESSFUL WITH THE FIREBREAK PROJECT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT CONDITIONS THEY PUT ON DMAF THREE.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANKS VERY MUCH. WE'RE NOT CERTAIN AROUND THAT EITHER, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'D BE LOOKING ON US VERY FAVORABLY GIVEN THE NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES THAT ARE IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW WITH DEALING WITH FLOODS, FIRES AND OTHER KINDS OF DISASTERS TO SEE ABOUT SUPPLEMENTING A PROJECT THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPLIED FOR.

SO I THINK WE'D HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THAT.

MISS THISTLE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE UNDER THE CRITERIA SIMPLY BECAUSE WE'D BE SUBMITTING TO DO THE SAME PROJECT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE ALREADY FUNDED THE WORK TO PREVENT THE RISK.

SO THEN TO APPLY TO PREVENT THE RISK THAT WE'VE ALREADY SAID WE'RE ADDRESSING THROUGH THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PIPELINE WILL LIKELY MAKE THE PROJECT INELIGIBLE.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCILLOR FEQUET THEN COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

I. THANKS.

I GUESS IN GENERAL, I SUPPORT THE EXTENSION.

I JUST AGAIN, THAT'S NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT WE SOUND LIKE WE DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO PHASE THE PROJECT, I WAS THINKING THE EXACT SAME THING AS COUNCILLOR MCGURK ABOUT WHETHER THE PUMP HOUSES OR WHETHER THE ARSENIC TREATMENT PROCESS, THE SCRUBBERS SHOULD BE APPLIED FOR UNDER THE DMAF THREE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS NO MONEY FROM THE PAST THAT WE'VE ALREADY GOT, BUT THERE IS ANOTHER APPLICATION DEADLINE COMING UP, AND IF WE MISS THAT, THEN THERE IS NO NEW MONEY. SO THAT 30 MILLION CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CITY ISN'T COMING FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AT LEAST FROM THIS FUND, AND THE GNWT IS PRETTY BROKE.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WHAT OUR LIKELIHOOD IS OR WHERE WE'RE ANTICIPATING GETTING THAT ADDITIONAL MONEY TO REDUCE THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION.

IF WE DIDN'T APPLY EITHER FOR A PHASE OR FOR A PART UNDER THIS DMAF THREE, AND I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I WAS CURIOUS OR CONCERNED ABOUT AT THE BEGINNING, IS THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD BE DOING BOTH. WE SHOULD BE EXTENDING OUR CURRENT PROJECT AND APPLYING FOR A PHASE OR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT, MAY OR MAY NOT BE PART OF THAT PROJECT [INAUDIBLE] PROCESS SO THAT WE'RE NOT HINDERED IN THE FUTURE AS TO MAKING A DECISION BECAUSE WE LOSE ALL THE 25 MILLION BECAUSE I THINK WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, RIGHT, 25 MILLION ISN'T GOING TO BE ENOUGH FOR US TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD.

[01:55:02]

EVERY YEAR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CREATES NEW FUNDING APPLICATIONS, SO THERE MAY BE A CHANCE THAT IN THE 2024 BUDGET THAT THEY CREATE SOME SORT OF WATER FUND THAT WOULD ADDRESS THIS, BUT WE DO HAVE TO DETERMINE IF WE SAY GOODBYE TO THE 25.8 MILLION AND TRY TO GO FOR THREE AND WE COULD LOSE EVERYTHING OR WE CONTINUE WITH THE 25 MILLION AND TRY TO GET THE 31 MILLION.

IT'S YEAH, A DIFFICULT SITUATION, BUT CURRENTLY THERE'S NO OTHER FUNDING POTS THAT AT THE FEDERAL OR TERRITORIAL LEVEL IT'S MORE LOBBYING AND HOPEFULLY THAT GIANT MINE WILL INCLUDE IT IN THEIR BUDGET OR INAC WILL COME THROUGH WITH THE FUNDING, STUFF LIKE THAT.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT ANYTHING FURTHER? THANKS VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.

THAT'S EXACTLY IT. I MEAN, WE WANT TO KEEP OUR OPTIONS OPEN RIGHT NOW TO SEE WHAT'S POSSIBLE.

WE WOULD HAVE VERY LOW LIKELIHOOD, IF AT ALL, BEING CONSIDERED FOR DMAF 3.0 UNLESS WE STEPPED AWAY FROM OUR ORIGINAL 25.8 THAT WE'VE RECEIVED, AND SO WE JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S WISE TO DO RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE RISK TO THAT THAN KEEPING ALL OF OUR OPTIONS OPEN THROUGH THE EXTENSION OF THE TIMELINE.

THANK YOU.

THANKS.

I THINK YOU'VE HELPED ME FIGURE OUT.

SO WHY DO WE BELIEVE THAT APPLYING FOR DMAF THREE WOULDN'T MAKE US WALK AWAY FROM THE CURRENT FUNDS THAT WERE ALREADY APPROVED? BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY PROVIDED FUNDING TO THAT PROJECT.

SO WE'RE REAPPLYING WITH THE SAME PROJECT THAT'S ALREADY FUNDED.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND THE FEDERAL OFFICIALS THAT WE'VE WORKED WITH SAID IN ORDER TO APPLY FOR 3.0, YOU HAVE TO STEP AWAY AND WALK AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL DMAF.

THANK YOU.

THANKS, MADAM MAYOR.

MAYBE JUST I THINK YOU SAID IT BEFORE, BUT JUST I COULDN'T HEAR, AND JUST FOR THE PUBLIC, WHAT ARE OUR SOURCES OF FRESH WATER, SHOULD THERE BE A TAILINGS FAILURE AT GIANT MINE? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF GIANT MINE HAD A FAILURE AND OUR WATER SUBMARINE HAD A FAILURE AT THE SAME TIME? THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE THAT'S THE ULTIMATE CATASTROPHE, IS THAT THERE'S A FAILURE AT GIANT MINE, AND OUR WATER SUBMARINE LINE HAVE FAILED BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

SO THE LIKELIHOOD OF THAT WOULD BE PRETTY LOW.

OF COURSE, NOTHING'S IMPOSSIBLE, BUT IF THERE'S A CATASTROPHE AT GIANT AND WE'RE DRAWING FROM THE RIVER, THEN WE'RE STILL GETTING THE SAME WATER.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? MS. BASSI-KELLETT, ANYTHING TO ADD? NO, I THINK YOU NAILED IT.

MR. GREENCORN, YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? OH, SORRY. I ONLY CAUGHT PARTIAL QUESTION BECAUSE IT WAS A LITTLE GOBBLED, BUT I THINK THAT ANSWER SO FAR IS ADEQUATE.

BECAUSE COUNCILLOR FEQUET YOUR QUESTION WAS WHAT HAPPENS IN THE ULTIMATE CATASTROPHE OF GIANT MINE FAILING AND THE WATER SUBMARINE LINE FAILING . SORRY. YEAH, LET'S SKIP AHEAD.

CONSIDERING WE'RE PAST THE EXPECTED LIFE CYCLE OF THE CURRENT SUBMARINE LINE, WE CONSIDERED INCREASING OUR INSPECTIONS TO ANNUALLY INSTEAD OF BIENNIALLY.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE WITH UNLIMITED RESOURCES, MONEY AND PEOPLE, RIGHT ? SO, MR. GREENCORN, I'LL ASK YOU; I MEAN, I THINK YOU'RE DOING IT BASED ON THE SCIENCE AND BASED ON OUR CAPACITY AT THIS POINT IN TIME, BUT I'LL SEE IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD. THAT'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY WITH THE OLDER INFRASTRUCTURE AGE.

AT THIS POINT, WE HAVEN'T CONTEMPLATED THAT.

WE DID DO A I GUESS, A PRELIMINARY INSPECTION JUST THIS PAST YEAR WHEN WE DID DO THE DISCONNECTION OF THE SPUR LINE TO GIANT MINE.

WE HAD A DIVER IN PLACE AND WHILE HE WAS DOWN THERE, WE HAD HIM DO A QUICK I GUESS NOT A NOT AN IN-DEPTH INSPECTION THAT WE USUALLY HAVE, BUT THERE WERE SOME SMALL THINGS NOTED, BUT NOTHING THAT IS KEEPING US UP AT NIGHT AT THIS POINT ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT ANYWAY.

THANKS FOR THAT. WHEN THE INSPECTIONS DO TAKE PLACE EVERY SECOND YEAR, DO THEY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHEN THE NEXT INSPECTION SHOULD TAKE PLACE, EXPLICITLY? MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

MR. GREENCORN? NO, THEY DO NOT.

[02:00:02]

CONSIDERING THE CURRENT STATE OF THE PIPELINE, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SIMPLY REQUEST THAT OUR CONTRACT [INAUDIBLE] FOR US DURING THE INSPECTION IS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHEN THE NEXT INSPECTION JUST SO THAT LIABILITY AND [INAUDIBLE].

IT COULD ALSO BE LIKE BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE A BUDGET IMPACT, AND SO IF COUNCIL WANTS ADMINISTRATION TO DO IT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, THEN THEY WOULD INCREASE THE BUDGET TO DO IT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. SO IT COULD COME FROM ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHETHER ADMINISTRATION MAKES THAT RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL TO INCREASE THE FUNDING OR COUNCIL DIRECTS ADMINISTRATION TO INCREASE THAT ACTIVITY.

MS. BASSI-KELLETT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I MEAN, IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ASSESSING THE STATE OF OUR ASSETS, MAKING SURE THAT WE DO QUANTIFY WHERE WE BELIEVE THEY'RE AT. SO AS PART OF OUR OVERALL ASSET MANAGEMENT, WE DO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PROJECTING LIFESPAN AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE AND WHAT KIND OF REQUIREMENTS ARE NEEDED TO MAXIMIZE THE LIFESPAN WITHIN THE OVERALL ASSET MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK.

SO WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE THAT AWAY AND TAKE THAT UNDER CONSIDERATION TO SEE WHAT WE BELIEVE WOULD BE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION.

THANK YOU.

THANKS FOR THAT RESPONSE, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT WE RANDOMLY OR ARBITRARILY REDUCE OUR RISK BY INCREASING OUR BUDGET AND MAKING ANY INSPECTIONS.

I WAS SIMPLY JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AND HOPING THAT WE COULD PLACE THAT EXPERTISE WITH THE FOLKS DOING THE INSPECTIONS SO THAT WE CAN ASK THEM FOR THAT RECOMMENDATION AS PART OF THEIR INSPECTIONS AND IN CASE THEY DECIDE AND TELL YOU GUYS THAT THEY THINK THE INSPECTION IS MORE REASONABLE REGULAR BASIS, AND THAT WOULD COME FROM BOTTOM UP AND INFORM THE BUDGET PROCESS. THAT WAS MY [INAUDIBLE].

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. JUST A COMMENT JUST TO SAY THANKS TO ADMIN FOR ALL THE WORK ON THIS.

YEAH, I IMAGINE IT CONSUMES A LOT OF TIME AND ENERGY.

SO THANKS FOR COMING FORWARD WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK GENERALLY I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE EXTENSION.

YEAH, AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S A CHALLENGING SCENARIO AND SORT OF INFLATIONARY PRESSURES.

EVERYONE IS SEEING UNDERSTAND THAT'S CHALLENGING FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

STILL JUST A COMMENT FOR MYSELF, IT'S DISAPPOINTING SORT OF STANCE ON THIS AND SORT OF LEAVING THE CITY TO DRY.

IT'S CHALLENGING FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND THERE'S A LEGACY PROJECT OF THEIRS AND ADDRESSING GIANT MINE IS GOING TO COST FOUR 8 BILLION, WHATEVER IT ENDS UP BEING, AND YET THEY [INAUDIBLE] DOESN'T SEEM TO BE PRIORITIZING CLEAN DRINKING WATER IN THERE.

THAT'S JUST SORT OF BIZARRE TO ME.

SO THANKS AGAIN TO ADMIN FOR ALL THE WORK AND YEAH, SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANYTHING FURTHER? SEEING NONE.

JUST TO CONFIRM THIS WAS AN FIO.

YES. OKAY. SO ADMINISTRATION WILL NOW WORK WITH INFRASTRUCTURE CANADA TO WORK ON THAT EXTENSION AND KEEP COUNCIL UPDATED, AND YES, ALL THE BEST.

JUST DRAFTING THIS MEMO IS ONE STEP OF THE WORK, BUT THE WORK AHEAD IS GOING TO BE BIG.

WITH THAT, NEXT MONDAY IS OUR FIFTH GPC SO OUR NEXT GPS WILL BE MONDAY, JUNE 5TH.

OF COURSE, WE'VE GOT COUNCIL TONIGHT AT 7 P.M., SO IF I CAN GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN, MOVE BY COUNCILLOR COCHRANE.

SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR WARBURTON.

ANYBODY OPPOSED? SEEING NONE. WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY AT 7 P.M..

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.