We’re responsible for the lifecycle, the maintenance, the ongoing monitoring of the buildings. We do the maintenance on boilers and whatnot where the buildings are our responsibility. We’re responsible for the general upkeep on the buildings that we own. We can track and monitor that stuff. If we’ve noticed a spike, we would certainly explore that and try to determine what was the cause of the spike, whether it was a system-related spike or whether it was an operations-related spike. If there’s an operations-related spike we could certainly talk to a department to figure out what’s going on to cause a spike. Some of them may be required. Some of them may be operational. So we would pay those bills.
I’m just trying to provide probably not the perfect example but say everyone decides that they want to start leaving the lights on at the Lahm Ridge Tower every night and that’s not a Public Works and Services building. They’re located somewhere else. I think it’s by and large a Transportation and Education type building. More of a directorate-level style as opposed to an operation. If people started leaving lights on late at night, not turning off computers, who becomes responsible? I’m trying to get the link between some responsibility for stewardship of the cost of the power versus those who end up picking up the tab regardless of what it is.
It may not be the best example because that is a leased building not an owned and operated building. If the property manager or the owner of the building were to come to us indicating that the power bills were going up, we would certainly deal with that through property management and talk to the department to get a sense of why the cost is so high. I think normally that’s how we would deal with that situation.
For owned and operated buildings we would have those discussions with the department. Many of our buildings have controls on them so that we can actually turn off lights at certain hours and make sure everything is shut down. We’ve also got other contracts with people doing cleaning and whatnot who will go around and turn off the lights before they leave the building. Lots of mechanisms to deal with some of those things.
Staying away from dollar value because it doesn’t really work on power bills or, for example, oil bills. It’s rather to start on a consumption level analysis, that way you know what is considered a baseline of fairness, because those other things change. They fluctuate. Does Public Works and Services set any communication tools up based on consumption levels based of these types of consumables that Public Works and Services at the end of the day picks up the bill for and the responsibilities held within the department has actually been taken away? Does Public Works and Services have any type of communication framework that does this?
Maybe if I can get the Member to explain that a little more clearly. I’m not sure I fully understand what he’s asking.
By way of example, if a school uses more than – I know they use more than 1,000 kilowatts, by the way, if a school used 1,000 kilowatts a month and all of a sudden they’re using 1,200 kilowatts a month, and we all know this is a ridiculous example in the sense of scale, but the point is, what is considered the stewardship and relationship built on consumption? If I said their power bill went up to $1,000 and it’s now $1,200, well, that could be because the power rate has changed, but the consumption may have stayed the same. It’s not fair to tackle the dollar amount but it’s consistent to challenge the consumption rate.
Back to the consumption, if they use 1,000 kilowatts a month typically on average and all of a sudden they’re starting to use 1,200 kilowatts, what type of link is built in their communication strategy and what type of tools do we have to get the school to say wait a minute, we have to figure out how we’re using power and why we’re using power? There may be a perfectly valid reason, but at the same time, someone has to be responsible for usage. It’s bread and butter economics or, I often say, kitchen table economics.
As indicated previously, we now have three years of baseline data on the facilities that we’re responsible for. This information didn’t exist previously so if there had been a spike in a school, the school may not necessarily know what caused that spike or why that was occurring. We can now monitor buildings on a constant and regular basis and if we see a spike, we see it early and we can get into the building to try and figure out what is actually causing the spike.
By way of an example, using the school as an example, it could be a faulty fan or a faulty motor that’s running all the time when it’s supposed to shut down on a regular basis resulting in a spike in the cost. We can get in there and find it and fix it. If it’s purely a usage issue, we would certainly have conversations with the department who is responsible for that building to find out why their usage has gone up. If it’s justifiable or if it’s some operational thing, we would end up having to pay those operational costs, but we have a pretty good sense of usage of power in buildings and can give you pretty good ideas of what buildings use at different times of year. Schools in the summertime are lower than they are in the wintertime when there are no students in there. We would keep the department responsible, informed if it isn’t something mechanical and something we can fix.
What type of authority do we have to provide direction on this particular one? The reason I say that is because if Public Works actually has to pick up the cost and there’s a shortfall, it looks like it’s Public Works’ fault as opposed to whoever is creating the overconsumption, or I’ll call it poor management of our assets and utilities. That said, it looks like Public Works has to be the mop-up, but what authority do they have to lean back into the departments?
I think I get the point that the Member’s trying to make as who is ultimately responsible for usage, and because we have the responsibility for running and managing the buildings and paying the bills, we ultimately have responsibility for paying those bills. We would have conversations with departments when usage is identified as one of the driving increases on costs. But this is not something that’s actually been a problem for us.
I mean, we monitor billings. We have a pretty good baseline of what the costs are going to be and the usage is going to be, and when we see a spike we, as I’ve indicated, determine whether it’s a mechanical or a system problem as opposed to a use problem by the client department. Where it’s been a client issue hasn’t really popped up. We’ve had a couple situations where we’ve had spikes due to mechanical, but not due to unexpected usage. If it did, we would certainly have a conversation with the department and talk about usage.
Mr. Hawkins, your time is up but I have no one left on the clock so I will put you back on.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not much more. I think the Minister is seeing where I’ve been building the issue. When Public Works picked up responsibility and I couldn’t remember, so I’m glad he said it was three years ago. I do remember it was a few years ago. Was full financial responsibility transferred over, and so by way of means, was full resources transferred over or was there an expectation when FMB came up with this great reorg, or who’s now the money and who’s going to be responsible for it, did they transfer, what I’ll call, in a parallel manner? So our budgets were this much, so let’s move it all over to the new line in Public Works, or did they sort of calculate it and say, because you’re a department, you probably can carry this so you get 80 percent of the budget?
That occurred in the previous Assembly, and I think as an MLA I remember having some discussions about that exact topic. If I remember correctly, the response at that time was that they made an effort to do an assessment of usage and costs, and transfer over the full amount. Can we say we got the full amount? In reality, hard to say, but they indicated they were going to do a full assessment to try to determine the costs and transfer over what was required to continue to pay the bills moving forward.
I’m just trying to get a sense here is Public Works being stuck with a responsibility where the users of the system, in the sense that the users of the power who are consuming the power are not responsible, and yet Public Works gets to wear the dirty laundry and make up the shortfall. In the last three years this particular area would have been budgeted with the department. How has the consistency been for the department to be able to pay these bills without having to require to move money from other program areas, et cetera, in order to make up any particular shortfall? And if they have had shortfalls, what type of shortfalls? If we could actually speak real dollars.
We track utilities separately and we’ve been able to cover our utility costs on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories with the budget provided. Talking to the deputy, we think we’re going to be tight this year, but other years we’ve been fine and we will continue to work to control those costs and find ways to reduce our costs through things like the Capital Asset Retrofit Fund in order to make sure that the budget we have continues to be suitable and adequate to cover our costs.
I’m hopeful this is the last question, probably as hopeful as you guys are. Does this also apply to, say, fuel, so our heating fuel? And the same question as the last one applies. If it does, maybe they could provide some clearer details if fuel is covered by this department. In other words, you pay all the bills and explain if there have been shortfalls over the last three years, and if there have been, how much money and where it has come from.
This utilities line covers electricity, fuel, water, garbage, sewage. I think that’s it. So far, like I said, in previous years we’ve had enough money to cover that. This year is going to be tight. We know with the spike in electricity costs that we’ll be pushing it and we will be coming to committee with a request for additional money to help us support the spike in electricity costs.
I don’t really have a question but I have more of a statement which is, I would hope that if the department sends their information to committee, I would hope that they would be based on, as I said earlier, it’s better and easier to gauge consumption levels than it is to, say, price levels. Because, as we know, the power bills increase but perhaps consumption has been contiguous, which demonstrates that that’s the problem. It’s not necessarily the technical money sense, although money is obviously the issue, but at least it demonstrates stewardship under these principles. If you’re short because the power bills have increased by whatever percent, I mean, and you’re trying to work off the same budget, obviously your same budget does not extend far enough. More of an observation and a comment, but I’m hopeful that whatever information, if this request actually does show up, it does have that type of information as applied and where necessary.
This information is going to be available in the public report. It will be by consumption, but also by price, so that both of those pieces of information are there. The Member is right. I mean, consumption is one thing but prices vary, as we’ve seen with electricity here in the Northwest Territories as of late. That information will be in the public report for committee and for the public to review at large.
Yes. Sorry. I ran out of time the last time and I think the deputy minister had offered some holdback information on contracts and I didn’t get a clear commitment that they would forward that to committee.
Yes, we will provide that to the Member and committee.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. Page 7-17. I have next on my list, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to ask the Minister about the infrastructure requirements or needs in our smaller communities. For example, our schools or Aurora College. Is there infrastructure information that we could look at in terms of a 10, 20 year, sort of, down the road? For example, my colleague from Nahendeh talked about the schools in his riding. They’re no different than the schools that we have in Colville Lake and we still expect our children to obtain a level of educational standards that is pretty difficult to beat at times. I appreciate the work that you’ve done in the last summer to get some of the modern facilities in our schools. Does the Department of Public Works have that type of information for some of the infrastructure needs that are going to be needed in our communities?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Abernethy.
Much of that information that I think the Member is looking for is within each department and their capital needs assessments. We provide technical advice, and when a build is required, we facilitate the build using the policies, procedures and the practices that exist within Public Works and Services. But for the actual plan, you’d probably need to get the specifics from each department.
If I’m correct, at one time Colville Lake was a target for a new school and then, somehow, that fell off the Capital Infrastructure Plan. Is that information readily available to see if that was the case? Was there enough work there to say if Colville Lake did receive the funding, this is the type of school that they would need? That’s what I’m asking.
Nahendeh, Trout Lake, or Nahanni, if they are in a temporary school, I’m not too sure. Our definition in government is as temporary, but that school is in a temporary waiting stage, and they’re not in a, as we would think, a proper facility, education facility. Does that go to education to you guys? Or you guys have some information that this is what you could do a type of school with a number of students in that school? I’m just looking for some information. I know Education is coming up next, so I will probably want to ask the same question and try to get some information for the education estimates.
Mr. Chair, we provide technical advice to departments on building status, building condition, which is part of figuring out what the deferred maintenance is and figuring out what work needs to be done on a regular basis.
But the priorities come from the departments themselves on what items are going to fall into the capital plan. Once an item is in the capital plan, there’s often a planning study that’s required. We participate in those planning studies, but the needs of the department come from the department in a sense, and then we help with operational plans and functional design and schematic design and those types of things. We will then facilitate the build through contracts. As far as where a project fits within the capital plan, the department is FMB.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Committee, we are on 7-17, Public Works and Services, activity summary, asset management, operations expenditure summary, $92.341 million. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. 7-18, Public Works and Services, information item, asset management, active positions. Are there any questions?
Agreed.
Thank you. Pages 7-20 and 7-21. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to just ask a little bit about our TSC services for authorities. I noticed that this division provides services to the Deh Cho, Sahtu, and Stanton Territorial Health Authorities. First of all, how long have we provided that service to them? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Stanton is new. We are just taking over Stanton now. The other authorities we’ve had for a couple of years, five years, at least five years.
Thanks for that information. What happens when we take it over in terms of costs? Do we just bill them? Does TSC just bill them as they do other departments?
Mr. Chair, chargeback rates have been established in the Government of the Northwest Territories by the TSC and we use those chargeback rates for the authority.
Presumably they used to cover that from their own funds and they did their own thing. Are the chargebacks, do we know, covering these new costs as we take them over, or are we having to fill in a bit? Thank you.
We believe that it is going to work out, but we are in a pilot for three months. That will give us a better sense of the actual costs, but we believe what they are spending and what we charge is going to balance out. [Microphone turned off.]
Thanks. Just quickly for clarity, I assume the Minister is talking about Stanton, not Deh Cho and Sahtu which we have longer experience with. Is there anything to add on those? Thank you.
As I have indicated, we’ve been doing the other two authorities for five years or more, and they fit pretty much exactly in a similar capacity to the other departments that we are responsible for as well.
I didn’t hear the timing of the three months’ work that’s happening now or the future, but I think the committee would be interested in how that pilot goes. What is the schedule? I think we heard in the Department of Health that the plan is to incorporate all of the health authorities. Is that true for all authorities in Education and so on? Thank you.
March 31st is basically the end of the three months, so we will have a better sense within a month. With respect to are we planning to take on any additional health or education boards, I will go to Ms. Gault.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Ms. Gault.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That’s currently something we are in discussion with the Department of Health. They are looking at this and have asked for input to help them make that assessment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Gault. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you for that information. I would say Health is very keen, based on our discussions in Health. It is understandable. If we could standardize so many things across our authorities, it would clearly help out this government in many ways. I hope that is possible.
My next question was: What is the schedule for bringing them on side? I guess we’re not at that point yet. I guess I would encourage the Minister to give that support. I am sure he can see the opportunities for efficiencies that standardization brings. We clearly have the capacity or the capability to take that on. That’s all I had. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Abernethy.
Mr. Chair, agreed.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Moving on with questions on this page I have Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister, in light of what we are discussing on another front, the Mackenzie Valley fibre optic line and what we see here for the Technology Service Centre.
In our small communities, we have different departments that belong to us and different authorities and health and education boards. Everybody is using different systems. It costs us quite a bit of money in those small communities. Is there a system now being looked at where everybody will be using that will cut down costs for some of the innovative concepts and ideas that are being discussed, like the Mackenzie Valley fibre optic line and the Technical Service Centre would be taking advantage of these new types of technology that are coming on line here?
I know in one of my communities, I have noticed a high number of invoices and money that is costing the Government of the Northwest Territories in order to have this type of service in our education, our health centres and municipal governments. It is draining our budget fairly good here. I’m looking forward to seeing some of these cost-saving measures in this area that will be helping us out quite a bit here. Thank you.
