Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Do you have witnesses you would like to bring into the Chamber?
I do, Madam Chair.
Thanks, Minister Abernethy. Committee, are we agreed to bring in witnesses?
Agreed.
Thanks, committee. Sergeant-at-Arms, would you please escort the witnesses into the Chamber.
Minister Abernethy, if you could introduce your witnesses to the Chamber, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With me on my left is Paul Guy, deputy minister of Public Works and Services; and on my right, the director of Technology Service Centre, Laurie Gault.
Thank you, Minister. We are on the Department of Public Works and Services, page 7-7, operations expenditure summary. We will leave this page and defer it until after we have considered all the other activities. We will move to page 7-8, Public Works and Services…
General comments?
Yes, that would be a good idea. I thought we were going to get this done tonight. Committee, are there any general comments? Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the Minister and Public Works delegation. Madam Chair, there are just two areas I want to open up in general comments because they are really hard to see where they fall within the scope of the budget.
The first comment I have for the Minister is I took it upon myself to do a fairly intrinsic post-mortem of the Inuvik E3 School in the fall of last year, and was challenging the same for the department to follow up with their version of a post-mortem.
The rationale behind that is not to undermine or point fingers at whatever we could have or should have, the point is this is one of our largest pieces of infrastructure. In fact, even after the completion or, as we know today, the completion of the Inuvik-Tuk highway, the E3 School will still remain as probably the second largest infrastructure on our books behind the Deh Cho Bridge. It is a very important part of our history. I think it’s a history that we’ve got to learn. There were lots of new factors that went into the E3 School. This is where the birth of the Class C estimate program and the use of market escalators in their calculations, so I may want the Minister to comment as to where the department is at with respect to their post-mortem on that piece of infrastructure.
The second comment I have here, again, is in relation to the infrastructure that we find here in Yellowknife, the new 10,000 square foot office building that’s currently in construction. I would probably like to get a bit of an update as to where we are with that project. The concern I have is that I’m always nervous when we have a project of that magnitude that’s spread out over a number of different budgets. I know we’re talking more operations and this is a capital, and I completely understand that, but I think it goes hand in hand with some of the operational expenditures that we see in today’s budget. A bit of a recap as to where we’re at, are we on budget, everything’s working, and then maybe an estimated time of completion.
Really, in general, just two general questions to open up. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. I thought we were doing general comments. However. We will save our response from the Minister until after we’ve heard from everybody who wants to make general comments. I’ll go now to Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, just have some short comments about Public Works and Services’ operating budget.
I think one of the first things that struck me, becoming a new MLA, is the issue of deferred maintenance, and learning more about that and finding out that we’re so far behind in our maintenance programs that we actually don’t have any kind of a plan to get back into just a regular maintenance. Everything’s deferred maintenance. I know the department has been able to depreciate that amount. I’m just wondering if I can get details on where the department assesses our deferred costs are at this current time. I know they were at, I think, $470 million, and they were down to $375 million, I think, before. I’m just wondering if the department can provide that kind of information on the deferred maintenance.
The problem with deferred maintenance is, obviously, we’re not putting maintenance into some of these buildings that we’re currently even building. I’ve heard that there are actually costs to our capital costs for this, because if you’re not maintaining buildings, buildings don’t last as long. Buildings that typically should last us 25, 30 years are only lasting us 18, 20 years, 22 years, because we’re not maintaining them as often as we’re supposed to be. Then we have to replace them, capital-wise, more often. The numbers and the cost of this deferred maintenance is just overwhelming, and I’m just wondering if the department, at some time in the near future, will have some sort of plan in place to get rid of deferred maintenance to be able to say that this is the end of the tunnel, we’re going to catch up here by putting in an extra $75 million a year or $50 million a year into deferred maintenance so that in some point in time we can say, even if it’s 10 years down the road, we know that we’re going to be caught up.
Obviously, I am happy to see the new lease manager position in Hay River. I think that’s something that’s going to help the South Slave as far as the implementation of leases. I, too, would also like to see an update on where the YK office building is at. First coming into the Legislative Assembly and seeing that this is on the budget, it would be nice to see what’s happening with that. I have some major concerns in the fact that I think the reason that it was built for market economies and stuff like that, I think it’s going to cause a vacancy that that’s going to create once we build that building and vacate some of the downtown. I think there’s going to be a lot of private owners that own buildings that are going to have complaints about the government basically affecting the markets that way. Especially with devolution and the federal government doing cutbacks, I think you’re going to see some downtown core of Yellowknife see some vacancy and we’re going to have to deal with those issues.
My concern is that when those demands come up that they’re going to want the government to invest more in the downtown core and maybe even fill them with positions. One of my mandates here is to make sure that we get jobs out to the regions and out to the small communities, and I’m just concerned that this building kind of defeats that purpose. That’s definitely an issue I have. Those are all my general comments right now.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we’re getting some nice crunchy comments here. Thanks to the Minister for the opening statement here.
We recently took over utilities for all government infrastructure, and I didn’t hear anything on what the real opportunities and efficiencies are that we’re realizing here, locating problems where utilities are clearly over what they should be and so on, reducing costs, so what have we learned on that front.
The $8 million on operations and capital expenditure to deal with our maintenance deficit; somehow that’s magic. We’re only spending $8 million and suddenly we’re down to $290 million. That’s pretty miraculous to me, so I’m not sure I understand all the aspects of that. I assume this is just for building infrastructure and doesn’t include our highway infrastructure which, I’m sure, would be in Transportation where the deficits are increasing in leaps and bounds.
What work has the department done on employing – on the bottom of your page 3 – employment opportunities where they are most needed? You know, that’s an easy statement to make, but some of the members of committee have done research on this and had research work on it, so we need to be careful when we say statements like that. I’d like to hear how that’s being defined, or what the Minister will do to make sure that’s defined in the realest sense possible, so that we actually do capitalize on what we’re trying to do there.
I’m also interested in what we have achieved in terms of settlement maintainers and apprentices. What sorts and numbers and what communities. That could come out in specific comments later, if the Minister prefers.
The 25,000 tonnes sounds really good in terms of reducing government greenhouse gas emissions, 9.2 million litres saved, but the real question is: What is this in relation to our total emissions? That is, combined with new fuel demands of new infrastructure, what is our net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and what is our net reduction in fossil fuel consumption?
I didn’t hear anything about the Green Procurement Policy. I, idealistically, look for this every year. Commitments have been made repeatedly to get this from a hollow couple of sheets of paper to an actual meaningful policy that’s implemented and enforced, and helps us to realize the opportunities we can for efficiencies and so on when we’re purchasing materials, supplies and small equipment.
Also, I’d be interested in any comments the Minister might have on our contracting practices. How are we dealing with things to be more clear so it’s a fair playing field? How are we preventing over-specifications for contracts that unfairly shift the bias towards one supplier because he couldn’t meet a brand name or whatever? And, of course, sole source contracts. I don’t know how much the department deals with that sort of thing, but that is an issue that I hear a lot about in the public and see concerns myself from the stats we do have. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in regard to general comments, my colleagues have pretty well hit on all the areas that I was going to speak to, but one specifically that I think needs to be brought to the attention is with contracting and procurement practices. Maybe when we get to the detail I’ll ask the Minister about change orders, the practice for this department to do change orders within a contract when it’s been awarded. Also, supplementary appropriations, how often does the department have to come back to government asking for more money if the contractors did not meet the dollar figure to complete a contract?
More specifically, with the one-time funding for the demotion of Samuel Hearne Secondary School and the new one coming up for Sir Alexander Mackenzie School, I have some questions in regard to that and whether or not change orders were administered and supplementary appropriations might be coming back to government. When we get into detail, there will be a lot of questions on some of these other areas. Deferred maintenance has always been a big one as well. Just some quick comments and I’ll wait for detail. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. We are on general comments. Mr. Yakeleya.
Just quick comments also. Thank you, Minister, for your opening comments. I, along with Mr. Bouchard, probably are going to ask some of the questions on deferred maintenance costs, because that ties into one of our goals for having safe and reliable facilities that are available to support the delivery of government programs and protected $290 million. That is by the end of this government here.
We have a lot of assets in our communities that certainly need taking care of and need some tender loving care. I guess it’s pretty tough, with the funding that we have right now, in determining which ones are going to be looked at from a priority level. I just want to make note and be consistent with my messaging, that there is increased development in the Sahtu. Some of our assets are an emerging issue here, and some of the needs that we see in the Sahtu need to be looked at. I want to make note of that for the Minister, of the increased development that we’re having and that PWS will look at that as an emerging issue, something that should be carefully looked at when they’re planning out their strategies to work within their department.
I do want to thank the Minister for the work that is being done to handle the Norman Wells natural gas situation by putting in some other alternative methods of using energy. I certainly know Inuvik is also probably in more dire straits than we are. However, those two communities need some close attention.
The situation in Norman Wells, the gas line was cut off in Norman Wells about a month ago or so, where the town of Norman Wells was pretty close to evacuating some of its residents. Those kinds of situations, we look at. I ask the department if they could continue working with the town and the residents. This year the businesspeople of Norman Wells will be cut off of natural gas and next year will be the residents, so there is some time there for us to look at what can be done. We have some assets there that are being looked at right now. However, in thinking about the residents, we are going to have to also make that changeover. I think they’re doing that as we speak.
I understand that one of our goals is to meet the basic community needs for heating, transportation, power generation and fuel through the safe and reliable provisions of fuel services. Again, I notice you look at the town of Norman Wells under that goal under the department.
My last comment would be on the work that is happening in the communities on apprenticeships, the type of work that is with PWS. I’m going to again remind the Minister that there’s an old DPW garage that was built in the ‘60s by the federal government and that turned over to the GNWT. I know, again, that stacks up against other facilities, especially for our small communities such as Tulita. I think that facility, that garage should be looked at. I have been here for eight years and still nothing has been moved on that or any type of indication, unless you can fill me in as to what your plans are for that DPW garage in Tulita. I have been there. It was built in the ‘60s. It’s no different than the old Department of Transportation garage up at the Yellowknife Airport. I’m not too sure if there are safety checks and hazardous material in that old garage. I just want to know what their plans are for putting a new garage in that area.
The last point I want to make is asking the Minister about the procurement of the work. I know the Minister and I have worked on several projects that certainly saw the benefits for going into the Sahtu, and the communities that could do the work or partnering up with other companies outside of the Sahtu to do some of the community work. I appreciate his flexibility. Knowing the circumstances, sometimes a one-size cookie cutter doesn’t fit everything. He is open and flexible on those issues.
I thank the Minister and his staff. Those comments came back from my constituents in the Sahtu. There is some flexibility with the department. I look forward to going through the mains with this department. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. We are on general comments. Are there any further general comments, committee?
Before we go to detail, I will go to the Minister for response to general comments, if he wishes.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to my colleagues for their comments. I will go through them as quickly as I can.
With respect to the Inuvik school, one of the first things I did when I became the Minister, I think it was April 2012, somewhere around there, it was about the time the school was getting ready to open, the Inuvik East Three School there. I saw it as one of the largest projects this government had been working on and I asked the department to do a comprehensive review on that. They have been doing it ongoing throughout the whole process of the build. They have a lot of information pulled together now, but there is still some work to be done on that school. Once the other two schools are torn down, there is still some site remediation and whatnot. So we won’t be concluding a comprehensive review of that project until it’s done, until that last bit of land work and whatnot has been done.
A lot of work has been done to monitor the process, to collect the data, the budget information, how we did the whole capital planning on that. There will be something to share with Members, once we have completed the post-mortem.
Two Members talked about the office building in Yellowknife. The project is on budget and on time. It is in a slowdown right now. Nothing is happening on it right now. We did a bunch of the cement foundation work prior to the dead of winter setting in. It does go over multiple years, but we have a contract for the build, and we expect the project to come in on time, on budget. Right now we are expecting to have the majority of the build done in… The completion of the base and building construction is scheduled for November 2014. We expect to hit that target. Completion of tenant improvements and ready to move will be April 2015. The budget includes both of those things.
Another one of my colleagues, Mr. Bouchard, talked about the vacancy rates in Yellowknife and the concerns about the new building. I would be happy to share the comprehensive report that was prepared in the 16th Assembly talking about vacancy in the capital. We are still confident that that information is going to hold true. We have already seen some of that start to take place. At the end of the day, the building is going to save us $100 million over the life of the building that we can roll into programs and services for different areas of the Northwest Territories. Right now we are confident that it’s going to be as is outlined in that report.
Deferred maintenance was another question that was raised. Deferred maintenance is the practice of postponing prudent or non-essential maintenance activities to capital assets as a result of a shortfall in any given fiscal year’s budget. If we go back in history in time a long way, prior to the life of this government, prior to the life of the previous government, even prior to the government before that, there were a lot of midlife retrofits that weren’t being done by the government due to financial resources. As a result, a lot of the buildings ended up not being in as good a shape as they would have been had we done a proper midlife retrofit on them. That’s one of the main reasons that our deferred maintenance is so high.
We continue to pound away at it, we continue to do work. We do our risk assessments on the different assets that we have to determine what needs to be done now, in order to extend the life of a building. But at the same time, my colleague Mr. Bromley wondered how, with an $8 million investment, did we drop deferred maintenance from $470 million to $290 million in this fiscal year coming up and we’re tearing down a couple of buildings, we’re tearing down Samuel Hearne, we’re tearing down SAMS, we’re also shutting down the Blueberry Patch in Inuvik. By shutting down these assets or tearing them down, a significant amount of the deferred maintenance is gone. Oh, and we completed Diamond Jenness, which was also part of the deferred maintenance, but by finishing that school, we’re going to have significantly less costs in the deferred maintenance area.
So by doing those things, by doing our risk assessment, by determining what assets can be fixed and then fixing them or which ones need minor things, we’re able to bring some of that down. So that $8 million may seem small, but between that and the other things that are happening, we’re seeing a pretty significant drop in deferred maintenance this year.
Some other areas, we took over utilities and the Member asked how that’s helping us reduce costs. There’s a number of different ways that taking over the utilities has been helping us to reduce costs, because we’re able to purchase more things in a bulk situation. The department has real familiarity with the technology that’s out there that some departments may not have who are responsible for it on themselves. So by having it located, we’re learning about best practices within government ourselves. We’re learning what’s working over there, we’re learning what’s working in different departments and we’re able to bring that information all together. We’re also learning where things like pellets and other heating systems could be utilized effectively and efficiently. Obviously, we’d like to continue to have successes in there. We’d like to have greater successes.
Another thing that we can do as a government that we weren’t doing great, I think, when this was a unique responsibility of different departments, is we’re able to track consumption, we’re able to evaluate the buildings more thoroughly for energy consumption and put that sort of in a central brain trust, if you will, that is able to compare it to other areas. So it’s about learning the information that’s out there, making sure that the right people are looking at it and reviewing it. We have three years of data now which we didn’t have before. So although the Member asked for some specifics on numbers about what our total emissions are, I don’t have that information at my fingertips, but I will get that information for the Member and committee.
The Green Procurement Policy, the Member said he didn’t want to hear again that we’re working on it, but we’re working on it. I see a real opportunity coming to actually have some real progress in this area and that’s going to come with the procurement of shared services. Right now so many things are happening all over the place and we think that this is going to be an opportunity to actually get some real headway on it. We’ve got information, but when we bring it all together, we think we can make some progress and I’m going to keep my eye on that one. I know the Member will be as well.
The Member talked about some contracting policies, and our sole-source and our standing offer agreements. There have been challenges with standing offer agreements, there’s no question. In some areas of government they work really well, other areas of government they’re not working particularly well. There have been some situations in Yellowknife recently where a number of people were concerned with, let’s say, the video production standing offer agreements. We’ve had a sit down with the individuals that are affected to get their side, their input on what wasn’t working and what needs to be fixed. The comptroller general is doing a comprehensive review of standing offer agreements and how these things roll out and then, when they come into a shared procurement, we’re going to be able to apply more consistent standards and application across the Government of the Northwest Territories. So there are challenges there, but I believe we’re getting them done and we’re engaging with our clientele, the contractors out there that are utilizing them to get good, solid information on how we can prove those standing offer agreements and other opportunities that exist for us.
Mr. Moses asked some questions about contracting and change orders. In particular with the school in Inuvik, we have a contract for the teardown of the Samuel Hearne School right now, and we believe there’s sufficient budget to cover the cost of the contract and any change orders that may come in. I don’t believe there will be any supp appropriations for this project. I know there’s going to be some specifics. So maybe I’ll leave them for detail.
The next couple of questions were from Mr. Yakeleya and they were on deferred maintenance. I think I’ve addressed those already in how we prioritize them. With respect to some of the challenges of Norman Wells and the natural gas situation, in addition to working with our partners in ENR and ITI in the community, we are making some changes in the community itself, which will help us get some of our assets off of gas, which means that it would put less of a demand on the community. For instance, the school and the airport we’re planning to change over to pellets. The new health centre and long-term care facility that will be built in Norman Wells, the primary source of heat will also be pellets. I think those things are a step in the right direction. It goes to keeping our footprint down and helping us control costs, and not making or creating additional reliance on gas, which may or may not be available.
The Public Works garage in Tulita, it’s in our needs plan. I hear what the Member is saying and I will have further discussions with my department on that to try and address those concerns. With procurement I’ve already talked to some degree on some of the changes that are happening, the comptroller general review of contracting policies and procedures in the government, and we are going to be bringing a shared procurement services into the Government of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. Committee, are we ready to move to detail?
Agreed.
Okay, page 7-7, Public Works and Services, department summary. We will defer this until we have gone through the various activities. Move to page 7-8, Public Works and Services, information item, infrastructure investment summary. Questions? Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions have to do with the changes during the budget year. The line entry I refer to is assets put into service during the year. It appears that the main estimates for 2012-13 had a $16 million entry. The revised came in quite a bit higher at $27.640 million and we’re going back down to the 2013 Main Estimates at $12.552 million. If I could just maybe ask the department to give me a bit of a narrative as to what transpired in this and why do we think that the main estimates are accurate. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Those are Public Works and Services’ assets. So we put more assets into service that year than I think we had initially planned, but I think for some specific details I’ll go to the deputy minister on that.
Thank you. Mr. Guy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. In 2012-13, under amortization and asset management, we had 55 assets that we were amortizing. In addition to that, we had 15 assets that were under the area of the Technology Service Centre and we had 42 assets in the petroleum products division. Because some of those assets became fully amortized, the number of assets remaining that are projected for 2013-14, we had 41 assets. So that was a decrease of 11 in asset management, the Technology Service Centre we had 14 assets, a decrease of one that just became fully amortized, and petroleum products we had 39, which was a decrease of three.
So, overall, we have a net decrease, is what we’re forecasting for ‘13-14, which is why we see a reduction in the amortization there. In addition, we do have some work in progress which hasn’t been booked for amortization yet. Those are things like tank farms that are under construction, the work that we have completed on the office building here in Yellowknife and some of the work that’s ongoing in the area of deferred maintenance. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Guy. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you. I caught probably about 60 percent of that explanation, but the concern I have is in 2011-12 we had $25.891 million in assets in service. In the mains that came down, there was almost a decrease of 70 percent. Then the revised in 2012-13 we put them back on. Now, if I heard correctly, there is amortization. I would assume it’s straight line amortization, items came off the books, but yet again I’m not understanding why we saw large revised estimates in 2013 and now we’re assuming that we have depreciated or amortized almost half of that in one year and are back to $12 million.
Can we get a bit more of an explanation of how we can yo-yo those amortizations which are really straight line spreadsheet costs? Maybe an explanation why we’re seeing the ups and downs, especially over the last three years.
I believe that, as we’re calling it, the 2012-2013 Main Estimates is really an estimate of what we thought we would be putting into service. The revised estimates we show there now have shown some of the work that has gone from work in progress into service.
I’m going to leave that one and ask the department, at their convenience, to maybe let the Member know what those calculations are after this process. I have to get a handle on that number. I’m sorry. The explanation I’m getting here today is just not entirely giving me the clear picture of what’s going on, and I’ve got a couple nods on this side of the House as well. Maybe I’d ask if they could share that with all Members here.
My second question on this page, 7-8, refers in the large capital projects category, we’ve got a revised estimate of $16.043 million in 2012-2013 and we’ve got a main estimate of $21.97 million. If my calculations are correct, that’s about a 36.9 percent increase on that line entry. Could we get an explanation of that entry?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to the Member’s first question, we will put together a more plain-language explanation of what that is so that the Member and committee has a better understanding of what that is.
With respect to the large capital projects and the change from the main estimates to the revised estimates, I will go to the deputy minister, please.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Guy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The number in the capital plan, again we had large capital projects, actual projects and tangible capital assets for 2011-2012 and we had the work in progress. I believe the difference shown in the main estimates was the work in progress going into service.
Mr. Guy, could you repeat for the record? You got cut off there.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe the difference, again, is the work in large capital that was held over work in progress being put into service, but I would have to confirm and get back to committee.
Thank you, Mr. Guy. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We’ll commit to getting a plain-language explanation of this one for the Member and committee as well.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Dolynny.
No other questions on this page.
Page 7-8, Public Works and Services, information item, infrastructure investment summary.
Agreed.
Page 7-9, Public Works and Services, information item, revenue summary.
Agreed.
Page 7-10, Public Works and Services, information item, active positions.
Agreed.
Page 7-13, Public Works and Services, activity summary, directorate, operations expenditure summary, $8.988 million. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Once again under this heading, I’ll go back to my initial questioning in terms of contract and procurement where I made mention of it in the general comments. Specifically, when this department does any contracting procurement, and awards contracts through the RFP process, and does look at awarding contracts to whomever it may be that get the winning contract, whether they’re a northern contractor or a southern contractor, how often does this department conduct change orders?
