Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Range Lake, that Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, be read for the first time. Mahsi.
Bill 4, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, has had first reading.
Motion carried; Bill 4 read a first time.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member from Thebacha, that Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act, be read for the first time.
Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Maintenance Orders Enforcement Act, has had first reading.
Motion carried; Bill 5 read a first time.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member from Sahtu, that Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Residential Tenancies Act, be read for the first time. Mahsi.
Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Residential Tenancies Act, has had first reading.
Motion carried; Bill 6 read a first time.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member from Yellowknife South, that Bill 7, Securities Act, be read for the first time.
Bill 7, Securities Act, has had first reading.
Motion carried; Bill 7 read a first time.
Item 19, second reading of bills. Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, Minister’s Statements 1-16(2) and 9-16(2), Bill 1 and Bill 3 with Mr. Krutko in the chair.
I would like to call the Committee of the Whole to order. In consideration of the Committee of the Whole are Minister’s Statement 1-16(2), Minister’s Statement 9-16(2), Bill 1, Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Employment Standards Act. What is the wish of the committee?
Mr. Chairman, we would like to consider Bill 1, Interim Appropriation Act, 2008-2009.
We will continue after a short break.
The Committee of the Whole took a short recess.
I’ll call the Committee of the Whole back to order. We are dealing with the Interim Appropriation Act, 2008-2009.
At this time I’d like to ask the Minister of Finance if he’ll be bringing in witnesses.
Yes, Mr, Chairman.
Does the committee agree to the Minister bringing in his witnesses?
Agreed.
Minister Roland, for the record could you introduce your witnesses, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joining me at the table to my right is the secretary to the FMB, Ms. Kathleen LeClair. To my left is the Director of Budget Evaluation, Mr. Sandy Kalgutkar.
Welcome, witnesses.
We left off on page 6, item 4, Health and Social Services.
I’d like to seek unanimous consent to return to item No. 3, Public Works and Services.
The Member has asked to go back to item No. 3, Public Works and Services.
Unanimous consent granted.
Item 3, Public Works and Services: $6,534,000.
I move that $115,000 be deleted from the Interim Appropriation Detail book — that amount set out in Schedule 2, Capital Investment Expenditures, item No. 3, Public Works and Services, on page 6, for the project Final Records Processing and Storage Facility.
A motion is on the floor. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
Committee motion carried.
Public Works and Services: $6,419,000.
I just note that we are spending $4 million to $5 million here — possibly more — on establishing and maintaining and replacing tank farms. This is a very costly procedure; the petroleum stored there is toxic and so on, so there are stringent regulations for how we store fuel. It’s a very costly process. I believe this is handled by the petroleum products division of Public Works. I think there’s a real opportunity here for savings if we can switch to non-toxic forms of fuel, which also have other benefits. I think in particular it’s been demonstrated in the North.
We heard discussion from the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs the other day that we can do things quite a bit differently in ways that save both on our capital costs and with environmental and socio-economic benefits, local economic benefits. So I’m wondering whether there has been serious consideration, rather than pouring all this money, tens of millions of dollars annually, into these assets to store possible fuel and so on, if in fact we’ve been looking at other ways of doing it — particularly, perhaps, changing the petroleum products division to the pellets products division, or something like that, and really getting at these savings that are waiting there for us. I recognize that we are taking advantage of those in a number of cases, but here’s another opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, we do realize, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, that further steps need to be taken in reducing the footprint we leave in this land that we live in, with the recognition that much of our communities need this because of supplies and a limited amount of time to get supplies into the communities. The majority is either home heating oil or vehicles that are running in the community that require this amount to be stored for meeting the year-round shipment.
As we move forward as a government to look at other initiatives — whether it’s heating our businesses or buildings or facilities — there will be opportunities for savings in the future. These are addressing either an upgrade that needs to be done to meet code requirements, or expansion of a facility because there’s not enough capacity in those facilities at this time to allow for enough supply to go through for a whole season.
Certainly I recognize the truth of what the Minister says. It does not address the opportunities we have, though. Of course, we need to be really progressive about this and stop this cycle somewhere. Obviously things are needed, but there are also huge opportunities to do things differently. Again, I say this as much for economic reasons, recognizing our financial situation as much or more than the environmental situation.
There’s an opportunity I see here for win-win. Again, I think, having looked at how quickly these things can be done, it can happen within the lifetime of this Assembly in spades. So I do recognize the truth of what the Premier said, but I want to stress that our opportunities are there. I wish I could be that relaxed about the time frame, but in fact it’s now recognized scientifically around the world that we are under the time gun here. The changes are happening at an unbelievable pace, and our costs are accruing at an unbelievable pace. So I’m looking for that same recognition from this government.
Mr. Chairman, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, we are seriously looking at how we do business as a government, if there are areas where we can effect a cost-saving by going to new technologies.
We also are looking at the fact that we may have to invest a little more up front to get a longer lifespan from some of the equipment and facilities that we operate. As well as doing as much as we can to mitigate the impact we have on the environment, there are a number of factors there that we’re working on. We have an energy committee through cabinet to begin looking at that and take the work that’s been done and continue to expand on it.
Health and Social Services, appropriation authority required: $27,562,000.
Mr. Chairman, I move that $500,000 be deleted from the Interim Appropriation Detail booklet amount set out in Schedule 2, Capital Investment Expenditures, item No. 4, Health and Social Services, page 6, for the project Health Care Centre, Fort Smith.
Interjections.
The motion is being disputed. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Mr. Chairman, sadly, the only function we have on this side of the House in these particular cases is to delete. I would much rather put a motion forward to defer it, although that is not a function of this House.
My issue here is that we’re running out with $500,000 of more planning money. I think this should be an item in the potential budget that will be brought forward in the May-June session. Mr. Chairman, really, the issue is about how this is being fed to Members. As far as I’m concerned, there needs to be further coordination between other facilities that are being beefed up in that community at the same time.
It’s not that we have them here to read for all Members, but if one looks closely at the details, this project is linked to another one — and they’re actually linked quite closely. We have to have another facility ready for them before the renovations and have people moved out of this project at the health centre. So I don’t think it’s going to be the death of this project; it’s just asking for some delay as well as some coordination that I think needs to be made.
On the same note I’m convinced that we’re creating mini centres in almost every community that I start to question it. You know, we have Stanton Territorial Hospital, and that should be our centre of expertise for the Territory as a whole. I think each region should define itself in that way. But that being said, we have the Fort Smith Health Centre that’s going to require multi-multi-millions of dollars. Then we’re going to be turning around in short order, and the Hay River hospital is going to be looking for multi-millions of dollars. I think we have to speak to the broader picture as to how much money we’re going to spend on these projects, why are we’re spending money on these specific projects, in what community and how they’re serving the Territory as a whole.
I’m concerned that… I think good investment needs to happen in every community. I certainly believe that every community needs to have a health centre. I’m just kind of wondering, when we’re duplicating programs when money is supposed to be very tight, as has been said many times by our good Premier…. The fact is, I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t spend money in Fort Smith, and I was not alluding in any way that we shouldn’t spend money in Hay River. It’s just that I think we should be very cautious about how we build our programs. Maybe the town of Fort Smith can offer something very specific, and you know, other communities can do that as well. The issue really is coordination and buy-in into the bigger collective system.
Mr. Chair, it’s not a “delete” in my position; unfortunately that’s the way the motion has to read. It’s more of a “deferred” until these weave together a little nicer. At this time, other committee members may have some comments.
To the motion.
Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with an interim appropriation here; this is not the normal kind of appropriation process that we would undertake. When the items were identified for capital in the interim appropriation, we were very clear in wanting to understand, I guess, as Regular Members, why they needed to be introduced in an interim appropriation.
So I guess to the point of this particular allocation, I have a few questions. I’d like to know, for the public record, why this particular capital project needed to be advanced in interim appropriation. I’d like to know what the substantiation is for the need of a $20 million renovation. We’re only voting on a small piece of that. Ultimately this is leading to a major retrofit to this facility. I’d like to know what’s wrong with it now. Is the utilization of that facility such that this kind of investment is warranted?
I’m also curious as to what’s with the fast-tracking of this? I mean, Hay River was ahead of Fort Smith for a major capital retrofit. We know that capital dollars are scarce, and I understand that Hay River’s turn will come, but I’m just curious about the timing on this one. If I could pose that question to somebody?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To the motion, Ms. Lee.
I just want to offer some answers to the questions raised.
Mr. Chairman, I think it’s really important that when we delete a capital project, it’s a serious matter, and it warrants a full debate. I would encourage Members to reconsider the vote and take a vote with all the information.
I’m happy to have the opportunity, first of all, to answer some of the questions that the Members may have. We should also note that while this is an interim appropriation, we have agreed that the capital budget will be a full budget, because we know that you can’t approve a quarter of a building. When you approve a project, it’s for a full year. The business of the government has to go on. When in budgets, we could do it by interim budget and approve a quarter of upcoming appropriations, because we understand that we haven’t done the full planning and full business plan process. As a new government and a new Legislature, we want to have full input into that.
But I think it’s important to note that we have agreed to do a different process for capital planning, and we have agreed that for certain projects we would approve for the full year. So I don’t think we should be applying that same rule about interim appropriation now.
There are questions about why this was fast-tracked. The answer is that this was not fast-tracked. This is part of a ten-year plan; this is the second year of the ten-year plan. The building that we have in Fort Smith was built in 1978, and it needs major, major renovations to do the work, to be able to offer the services there.
It’s also a part of the integrated service delivery model, which is the operating principle of our delivery of care of Health and Social Services in the Northwest Territories. Simply put, it’s about being able to offer a combined service of health and social services in the same building. That’s what the Fort Smith Health Centre is wanting to do, as is the case in many other facilities.
I’ve visited Fort Smith, and the renovations have been going on for quite a while. This didn’t come about at the last minute or anything like that. This is part of a ten-year master plan. The work that needs to be done is to renovate a wing of the hospital so that we can accommodate midwifery services there, which is an important service that this government wants to do more of. It needs space to do more diagnostic imaging in the facility. Also, it has a lot of safety and upgrades and renovations that need to happen. And these facilities have to get the work done in the regular course of business.
This is the result of a technical status evaluation that was done already, and work has been going on for a long time. The Fort Smith Health and Social Services Authority board has approved a master development plan, and the department is working with the authority to do that work.
There’s a question about why Hay River is not in the plan whereas Fort Smith is. The answer to that is…. And I agree the Hay River facility is also in need of either a major mid-life retrofit or a new building. The question there is that there has not been an agreement from the local authority as to what kind of plan that should have. All that disagreement happened before I came into this office. So we did not have an agreement on the capacity or number of beds or levels of services that the facility should provide until last November, when the public administrator submitted a report to me that speaks to the master plan. That part of the work is in the works. Fort Smith did not in any way jump the queue ahead of Hay River. There is work going on for Stanton as well.
The need for technical upgrade and renovations and for making sure we use what money we have to accommodate spaces and facilities to deliver those services that people have to go on.… That is why we need to move on to the second phase of this renovation process.
One more piece to this is there’s another item coming up later on where Northern Lights facility is being renovated. That is part and parcel of wanting to maximize space we have. We make the best use of the spaces we have so we don’t have a long-term care patient who could be taken care of elsewhere and so we’re not using a very expensive hospital setting. They can be taken care of and not be in need of medical services. I urge the Members to think of this as the regular course of doing business in this government.
While we are talking about doing other initiatives, the work of the government has to go on, and this project has been on the books for a very long time.
I didn’t hear the Minister talk about — and this is a big part of it for me — what the $863,000 that was already approved was spent on. I haven’t heard an explanation on that, but I’ll keep going. Maybe we can get some detail about that later.
The Minister also talks about a master development plan there, but looking through the capital plan and looking at the capital expenditure that is going to be necessary in Hay River, as well, leads me to wonder if the government has an overall health care facility plan. Why would we look at duplicating an effort in one community and then a couple of years later, duplicate that effort in another community in close proximity? I think that’s the question I have on it. It’s a difficult one.
I wanted to have a little bit more information, because I can understand and appreciate if the $863,000 has already been spent and the work is already started, then it’s something I could look at supporting. I just wanted some more detail on that.
I won’t be supporting the motion to delete. I believe that providing services to the communities in the region are an important aspect of delivering our programs and services to the residents of the Northwest Territories. That’s something that we should continue to focus on and continue to champion.
Our constituents and our people in the North want that service. They don’t want to be centralizing everything and moving education and health services back to Yellowknife, and that’s not the purpose of any central government, I believe. We’re on this path of devolving programs and services, and I think we should continue it. As an MLA from small communities and regions, I will certainly support any expenditures in our region.
