Debates of June 6, 2006 (day 6)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as for the planning and how it got through to this stage, the client department would have to probably best answer that. The square footage, I would have to come back with that number. I know we have it, I just don’t have that level of detail with me. The information I’m provided is the existing renovation estimates based on an estimate done in 2004 is $12 million. That’s for the facility as it is. To replace the facility with the same size as being used and occupied right now with government and non-government occupants, is the $20 million. For just GNWT staff and Aurora College, then we’re looking at $10 million and I would have to get the square footage detail for the Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Well, before we can, I think, make any decision on what we’re doing here, we need to have that kind of information. I mean, this is like a very significant amount of money. I have to say that I thought Mr. McLeod’s questions were excellent too. I mean, how can you say upgrade it to this code, but in two years…that just seems like a very arbitrary decision. In two years, those upgrades are no longer any good. What? Is the code going to change in two years? I mean, that’s a very good point. Either the building is safe and it’s up to code or it isn’t. You know? It isn’t, you know, we’re just going to go a little ways and then everything is going to be fine. So unless the fire marshal’s anticipating that the building’s going to deteriorate further in the next two to four years…

But anyway, I go back to my point, Mr. Chairman. My point is that this is a wonderful opportunity. We do owe the people of Fort Simpson better than $3.5 million thrown into something that we’re going to tear down in two years. The Minister says two to four years before we can get anything done, before we could even get a building plan. Again, another example, two to four years before you can get a building up? I mean, I’m telling you, as a matter of fact, I just went out to the Member’s lounge and phoned a contractor and asked a question. How long reasonably would it take, you know, to build a building in Fort Simpson if the government went to tender for office space? Let me tell you, it wouldn't take two to four years. So again these are artificial, inflated, unreasonable numbers and time frames that the government puts around these things. I bet you could have a building designed that would be an asset to a community. You could probably get the local aboriginal development corporation involved; you probably could get the business community involved; you probably could get a private developer involved, and you could probably have this thing up and operational with ready to turn the key in the door in probably six to 12 months. Because you know on the upgrades I want to tell you something, there's going to be lead time on the upgrades. The $3.5 million, you just can't go out to tender for that unless you get all that work done. I mean to take the lead time, what it would take to put out the tenders for the upgrades is probably longer than it would take you to go to tender for the whole space and get somebody in the private sector to develop it. It would be a real economic boon to the community. It could get a whole lot of people who are in the contracting business involved in that, perhaps even to the region. So I'd like to ask the Minister if he would consider doing that. There is no way that I, for one, quoting the phrase from my good friend from the Mackenzie Delta, that I, for one, am going to support this. This is the irresponsible use of government money.

So lead time. Let's talk about lead time. If you're going to go to tender for upgrades, how long is it going to take you? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I guess Public Works would be hoping that there are contractors out there saying that they can build things for cheaper than we've estimated. All our numbers so far have come in higher than what we've estimated, so if you pass on that number for me and maybe we can get some business done.

The fact is, one of the reasons we have so much delay is that our estimates have come in lower than the results of tenders or RFPs. We would hope that once a decision is made…The Department of Education, Culture has made a decision now that they're going to go to a new facility. They're going to have to get it in a capital plan and it's going to have to make the grade with others, or, as a government, we're going to have to change our process in how we get some of our space. So if we go to a lease, that is a possibility. We've done those before and we'll continue to do a number of those. So those are the things we would look at.

The lead time, I'd have to get somebody with more technical background than I have to give that, but again we can provide that for the Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've got three seconds here. I'm still telling you it's going to take less time, it's going to take no more time to go to tender for a private developer to lease you the space. You don't have to worry about the capital dollars; it's just O and M. You can just lease the space. It's going to take you no more time to put out that tender than it is for the tender for all of the upgrades, and that's the point I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, what I've been saying for a number of responses now, the community has been involved in this process. Initially we tried to accommodate the request of the community to stick to a renovation rather than going to a new facility. But all our work, the accountant looked at the value of dollars spent and the lifespan of the facility; going new is the best method to use. Yes, like I said, the department has now made the decision that they'll go to a new facility. As a government, if we say it will be a leased facility, we can go out there for space and have a private developer come up with that. But the fact is, the department still has to have this program established in the business plan. It still has to go through that stage, and we need to start someplace. That's why we're at this situation and, yes, admittedly it's not the situation we'd like to be in where we're going to spend as much money as this in a short period of time and then go to a new facility. Unfortunately, in all our talks, all the discussions, all the work that has been done back and forth, we've burnt the timeline up. So that's why we're here today; the department has requested this; FMB reviewed it and has agreed to put it in here, and that's why it's in as a supplementary appropriation, is waiting for the authority of this House to either say yea or nay to it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to go on at length. I think a lot of ground was covered by my colleagues here in terms of this proposed expenditure of $3.5 million. I guess there's a couple of fundamental things I just wanted to mention and I guess the first one is the Minister, in discussions we've had with him previous to this on the Deh Cho Hall and the upgrades that were required there, I think he should have come here this evening with the numbers in hand on what the square footage is; at the bare minimum, what the square footage is today that's being utilized by our government employees and other tenants in that building, and the square footage that would be needed in a new building. I think at the very least the Minister should have come here prepared with that.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to again just mention this. This has been an issue now for four years. Why isn't it in the capital plan? Why isn't there a new building for Fort Simpson? I know other Members have mentioned this. We're letting the residents of Fort Simpson down here. We haven't come up with a plan. We haven't worked this through, and here we are at the 11th hour with a gun pointed at our head, either you spend $3.5 million or we're going to shut this building down. There's no wiggle room, there's no anything. I don't think it's fair for the Minister to put us in that position and I think it's irresponsible of Public Works and Services to put the Members of this House in that position. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, I'm really quite upset that this has been allowed to take place. Why are we here discussing this? Other Members spoke earlier of this. It shouldn't be allowed to come to this, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I've been a Member of this Assembly for almost three full terms and I've been part of many processes where grandstanding is part of the game plan or part of the process to draw more attention to it. The fact is, Public Works is not putting this House in this position. Public Works has done work for a client department. The client department has worked with the community and there has been no satisfactory result or a decision made at that point. The fact is, the client department in charge of the project would have to make decisions and would have to bring that project to the table. Education, Culture and Employment has now brought that project to the table. It will now be put into the mix for dollars to be identified. Even if it was to be a leased facility, we would still have to identify the dollars for that leased facility. If it's going to be our own facility, we have to come up with…still identify the dollars but come up with the capital up front.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what else we can say to this. The fact that, admittedly, the process that was used in trying to incorporate the wishes of the community by the department and the requests of the client department back to Public Works for further work was done. Unfortunately, we end up in this position. So it's not Public Works that's putting Members in this position. It's been the fact that the government's tried to work department to department with the community and, unfortunately, has run itself out of time in not making a decision. That decision has now been made and the client department is now requesting those funds to proceed at a minimum with this.

If the Members don't like the process, disagree with what's been done, I can't go back and turn the clock back to a decision that was made four years ago, or why it wasn't made four years ago or five years ago. All I can do is speak to it when we've been involved, and the processes we've tried to put in place.

If the Members wanted the exact square footage and I had advance notice of that through our previous discussions, I would have had them at the table, yes. I was aware of some concerns, requested the client department to come back with more detail, I've tried to provide that to Members.

Ultimately, yes, we're in a bad spot. The client department has come forward, requested money to keep this facility in use until we can get new office space in play. Whether we go down to a private developer to put that space in, we still need the money and authority from this House. So at minimum, we need to keep the department in space that they occupy right now and then we can get to the next stage.

Unfortunately, yes, hindsight is 20/20. If I had the opportunity to advise the Minister-of-the-day to say make a decision today so we can get on with it, get it in the capital plan, that would have been done. We are in a position now where a decision needs to be made and this House will make that decision and we will have to live by it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in my comments I guess I should have spread some of that irresponsibility factor over to the Minister of ECE in this, because I think somewhere along the line there has been some irresponsibility here and as a Member of this House I don't appreciate that too much, having to agree basically to flush $3.5 million down the toilet after two to four years. What have we got after two to four years after we spend the $3.5 million? We've got no guarantees at all. It's not a good expenditure of public funds.

A condemned building.

It's close to being a condemned building, as other Members have suggested. Again, I think the government is not or should not bring this forward in this fashion. All the homework has definitely not been done in this area and I would challenge the government to prove that all the bases have been covered here. The Minister of ECE, I mean the client department, Mr. Chairman, who ultimately is responsible for this getting to this stage? Would the Minister say it's the client department, would he say it's the community of Fort Simpson? Who is it? Who takes responsibility that we're in this situation today?

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I've just been provided a note that the Deh Cho Hall right now is 320 metres squared, existing facility. I don't have the detail of the actual new building that would be required. The fact is, the client department would have to make a decision based on information provided, and they would have to decide whether they would renovate, how much they would renovate, if they didn't like the options or they wanted some change in the scope of the review, that they would go back to Public Works and Services for that information.

As I stated, there was plenty of to and fro discussions, reports provided and ultimately it comes down to each client department, whether or not they have enough money or they need to get more money, they would have to go to FMB for that requirement. So in this case, because there is no capital project for the Deh Cho Hall, the client department, based on reports that it was given, whether it's Public Works done or through a consultant, they would have to take that report and come up with their plan as to how they were going to either come up with a facility or renovate that. So that's how it would work. Each, whether it's Health and Social Services, Education, Justice, they would have to make their decision, bring it forward based on their requirements. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, again I just want to state for the record, it's not a good position to put Members of this House in, it's not a good position to put the residents of Fort Simpson in especially. Mr. Chairman, this is just another example of poor government planning and us having to make a decision based on poor planning, and, Mr. Chairman, I don't like to see that. It's absolutely poor planning on the government's part. You know, it just begs me to say somebody is ultimately responsible for this. Now I don't know which one of the Cabinet Ministers wants to take responsibility -- the Premier, the Minister of ECE, or perhaps the Minister that's sitting in front of us here -- but somebody ultimately has to take responsibility, gentlemen. This shouldn't be allowed to happen. I can't put it any more clearly than that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I stated, I guess I would say that as the Government of the Northwest Territories we would not rather bring something like this to the table. But unfortunately, with the work that was done, the process that was used, trying to bring agreement to the table around this facility has ended us in a situation where this needs to get done. A decision had to be made and it is now here at this table for either the endorsement or the House's disagreement with what's being presented.

Yes, it is not a good position to be in and it's not a good position for Members to be in. It's not a good position for FMB to have to bring this forward. But between the discussions, planning and process used, a decision wasn't made in a timely fashion and now we're in this situation where there is a requirement being placed about us by those that have the authority to do so, to meet minimum requirements, and that is what is being brought forward to this House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next I have Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Minister, because he said the plans are in the works now to put into capital, maybe, the new facility for people in the Nahendeh and Deh Cho, so we call it Deh Cho Hall. That facility is in Fort Simpson so it's in that area. So is there plans to put a new facility in replacement of this building that we're talking about? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the client department has made a decision to replace this facility with a new facility. But as I stated, now the process would be required that it would go into the capital planning process that we have established, and then we would have to identify the money or make a decision to go to a leased facility once that is approved within the capital plan and business plan process. So the decision has been made to go to a new facility. Unfortunately, we're in a situation where we have to make the minimal code requirements to continue with this facility until we get a new facility put in place. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Minister, in some discussion around here, has stated clearly that it's time to make a decision, and for whatever reason that decision wasn't made four years ago, we can't really say. So today we have to think about what the people in Fort Simpson or for that Deh Cho Hall want to do. There are a number of people in that facility that's going to be impacted or affected for the next couple years. I think to do the proper thing, there was some good suggestions around the House here in terms of I guess we could have laid back and said, well, we could have done this, we could have done this, and think about this and that. So I think the Minister's got a clear message in terms of doing this in a responsible way, I guess, if you call it that, in terms of what could be planned for upcoming projects such as this new facility. So I guess I'm looking at more of the people who are using that facility and how they're going to be impacted by our decision today. There's people in the Deh Cho or the Nahendeh region that use this facility. It still bothers me why people still want to live in an old residential school unit and fix it up. That’s anther issue here. It’s a good facility. I have been in there. I still get the creeps as I walk through those hallways.

Anyhow, that is another story, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that I think the way we are going about it, I am satisfied with the Minister’s explanation. I don’t like it, but I am satisfied with how it’s come about and why four years later we are debating it. I am going to support this budget item here and get on with the work.

Get on with it!

I am going to say that as a comment, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Next I have Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Chairman, I just have a question. How much money would be required to approve this in order to create a full renovation plan that would satisfy the needs of the fire marshal? Would it require, for example, $100,000 plan in order to satisfy the fire marshal on an interim basis while a strategy comes forward to renovate the whole facility? As I clearly heard here, $12 million would buy us a smaller facility, $10 to $12 million would buy us full reno on this building. Money has to be spent to tear down the siding, ripping down the insulation anyway, so it’s like we would breathe new life into it. I think this would be a good temporary solution to the problem. No matter what we do, we are going to have to clean up the environmental problem whether we tear it down or renovate it. So we would be killing two birds with one stone. So how much money would be required as of today that would satisfy the fire marshal in order to build a plan to renovate the whole building for the $12 million or $10 million figure in the existing size and space? The fact remains if we spend any money, we are still going to have to spend $10 or $12 million in two to three years. So then it’s a $14 million problem. So how much money in the short term? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have used a number of numbers now, but for the record again, to meet the requirements for occupancy of the existing facility, if the choice was made to renovate, it would be $12 million for the existing facility. To go new for the existing facility, that’s a full amount and I am going to have to double check the square metres for occupancy now. I will have to confirm that with the number I gave earlier. It could possibly be out substantially. The fact is $12 million for a renovation of the existing facility based on 2004 numbers. It is a $20 million renovation…New facility for existing space, $10 million just for the government departments of new space. The amount to meet the requirements that are in place is $3.5 million. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Chairman, from the Minister’s point of view, is that $3.5 million lost if we treat it as an interim investment to complete the renovations? In two or three years, can he just come back and say to renovate the building at 100 percent, as he has pointed out, is $12 million. Can we take the $3.5 million off that end total and continue to renovate the whole building, or do we have to start from scratch and it’s the whole $12 million? I want to know if we are investing in a long-term solution, or are we just throwing that money away? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Mr. Chairman, if the decision is to go back to a renovation, then this money would be an investment and knock down that overall amount. So if we’ve gone back to not a new facility but a renovated facility, then this is an investment that we can continue to build on. Ultimately, though, the lifecycle of that building would only be increased to approximately 20 years for a full lifecycle renovation. The decision has been made to proceed to a new building because of the dollar figure. If it is the direction of this House that that doesn’t happen, instead a renovation happens, then we would look at that option as well and go back to the drawing board and make the initial investments and build on it from there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s given me a lot to think about. If you treat it as a renovation over the long term, it sounds like a different approach. I was concerned that we were initially going to spend $3.5 million, have to throw it away and in three years we would have to walk away from our investment. I think that’s where the concern really comes from and I am sure Members on this side of the House would see it that way if we would completely have to walk away from $3.5 million, because I don’t know how anyone on this side of the House can spend $3.5 million for three years and walk away from it, or even two years. If we are talking about an approach that we can turn around and continue the same size of the building, it’s got me thinking in a different direction, which means debate has worked in this particular case. If you walked in the House thinking that this is a waste of money, but then hearing the debate and thinking that all it is is a makeup in two to three years, another $8 million and at the end of the day we are going to get a solid building renovated and whatnot. I think in this particular case, I am going to have to support this. Debate has worked in this particular case and it has changed my mind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Members have raised some good points here. There are some requests for information that neither the client department or Public Works have tonight. We can go on and on about why things didn’t happen or why we didn’t do this or that, or we could do a vote and make another decision that a lot of people feel is foolish or wrong. With that, Mr. Chairman, I think it’s necessary to get more information. ECE doesn’t know how much space they would need if they were going to build a new building. We need that kind of information. So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I move that we report progress.

Thank you. The motion is in order. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

I shall rise and report progress. I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for appearing, and his witness.

Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Bill 1, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 4, 2005-2006, and Bill 2, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1, 2006-2007, and would like to report progress with one motion being adopted, and that Bill 1 is ready for third reading. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of Committee of the Whole be concurred with. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Do we have a seconder? The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya. The motion is in order. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, be read for the third time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. There’s a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion.