Debates of June 7, 2006 (day 7)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the process we would follow when it’s an owned asset of our own, whether it’s a school or a health centre or a warehouse, if it is an owned asset we would go down the process of looking at it and we continue to do that, is just replace it with our own capital dollars and continue to own it. The government at one time reviewed the possibilities and actually sold off a number of its owned assets and looked at leasing more space. That’s something we continue to do as we review each situation, is do we do this. Ultimately, what we would have to decide is in fact, because right now we don’t have a lease program in place, we’d have O and M to operate a facility. To go into a lease program is a shift from where we are. In fact, as I stated earlier as well, or yesterday, the leased option is something that we’re going to have to consider when you look at our total capital plan and the number of projects that are on the books. The capital plan is now going to be potentially capped out, because the requirements are far exceeding the dollars available and we would have to look at ways of getting some of this much needed capital on the ground and leasing is always one of the options. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I thank the Minister for that answer. This is something that the community wants and this is something that I’ll champion all the way. It’s not some whimsical airy project that just come out of nowhere and I would just like to remind Members that we always said we’ll bend over backwards for the will of the community and this is one of their wills, is to see the continuation of this building and Members want to say well, Kevin, you’ll get a better building. Yes, okay, let’s put $20 million on the books and I’ll be happy to go home to Simpson with a $20 million building. In fact, doing that will bring, according to the new motion that we passed early this week of bringing $200,000 worth of arts into the community, you know, I’ll look like a hero bringing that back. But the fact is right now the only solution now is to retrofit that building. I’m flabbergasted as well with the construction projection estimates. Like $3.5 million and people say well it’s not going to cost that much, but it is, it is going to cost that much and that’s a fact that’s here today. Leasing a building and building a new building, that’s going to be done, but today it’s what are we going to do with all the employees and where are we going to house them, and this is the only solution that’s there and I’m supportive of it and I believe this is the best course of action. Today this is the best course of action. So I support it and this is what we must do. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. I didn’t hear any question. Next I’ll recognize Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I’ll just be brief on this because everybody is beating everybody else on what their concerns are that we expressed yesterday. I just want to let it be known that I won’t be supporting this motion, not because of what everybody was saying, you know, the government’s lack of foresight and lack of planning escalated by all the changes in the political landscape of the day that kind of added to and made this whole lack of planning look even worse. But I know the Minister stated ECE would be left out in the cold along with all these NGOs. I know that the NGOs that are there now, that they make significant contributions to the community as a whole and I’m sure the community doesn’t really give anything about whether ECE gets left out in the cold, but I think they care more about their library and their cultural and their multimedia centre and Open Door Society. I think that probably means more to the community than a government department.

I know the Minister is kind of backed into a corner and this is the only way that he’s going to be able to pole vault out of there without getting his feet full of paint and all that stuff. The point I want to make is I think this is a real valuable lesson for government that’s got to be learned here and I think that’s the point that we’re trying to drive across here, is the financial management and government planning has got to really take into consideration that we obviously won’t know what every communities’ needs and wants are. We don’t advocate that we should know, but we want to know, as Members, how this government plans on spending public dollars. I think this issue here never was on the books and we never were consulted on it or even briefed on it and given any opportunities to have any input on what we could provide for information or options that this government could look into. I know that the fire marshal could shut down the building tomorrow if he wanted to and the community wouldn’t only be out of an Aurora College and a Department of ECE, but also all these NGOs, which, again, I want to stress that the community probably would take a more harder stance in protecting those NGOs than a government department that is going to be doing the renovations.

So just as a last comment I just want to say that I can’t support the motion, not because of the fact that I don’t think the government’s lack of foresight and lack of planning is to be overlooked, but I don’t want to see all the other community organizations affected because of this lack of planning and lack of foresight in financial management. If we do eliminate this out of the budget, then the ultimate bearers of the whole brunt of this deletion here or this motion is going to be those NGOs, which rely heavily on the Deh Cho Hall as a source and an establishment to carry on their business that they do effectively and efficiently for the community and I have to support that. That’s all I’m going to say, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. I would just like to remind Members here that there is still no motion on the floor right now. We’re just going through general comments. So I didn’t hear any question actually to the Minister. So I’m going to refer over to Mr. Lafferty now.

Mahsi, Chair. Mr. Chair, I’m just, I guess for yesterday and today, just sitting back and observing what’s been said around the table. Talks about this Deh Cho building, we talk about the past the present and the future. We talk about the past where we should’ve, could’ve, would’ve. I think we really need to step backwards and say okay, let’s move forward. We need to decide what we’re going to do now, because I agree with what Members around the table are saying where they are badly, I guess, disappointed in the whole process where the AOC and the Regular Members weren’t consulted. I agree with them that we should have been consulted when this whole thing erupted I guess back in 2002 or earlier. I was quite disappointed that it wasn’t on a business plan as well, or capital plans, and we would have had a new building by now if it was the case, but that didn’t take place. I guess at the same time my colleague Ramsay has stated earlier that it wasn’t fair on us, even for the community of Fort Simpson.

I think a clear message here would be of course we’ll move forward, but I think the Minister and the Cabinet heard over and over that they need to consult with us because this is a major step. It’s like a catch-22, we’re in that position right now. You pass a motion, you’re doomed; you don’t pass the motion, you’re still doomed. Eleventh-hour decision-making is not right. So I think we must keep in mind that we need to decide what we’re going to do now, keep in mind that we talk about the dollars and the old building, 1957 building, but at the same time there wasn’t much discussion on the people that’s in the building. I think we have to really seriously take into consideration that we can’t just throw them out on the streets. Of course there is plans in place, okay, well maybe we’ll do it this summer, but I think that’s my priority. What are we going to do with those resources, the people in the building? Coming from a small community buildings such as Deh Cho Hall is a primary location for community members to visit, to hang out, to ask questions. That’s the location where everybody goes to. In my community, it’s the culture centre where people gather and share stories. That’s an important place we are talking about now. I agree with Groenewegen when she says maybe a contractor could be hired immediately. At the same time, we need to do something now. If we are going to hire a contractor, that’s down the road. We need to make a decision today, because certainly I am not going to delay this again. When it comes to the motion, Mr. Chair, I will be speaking on that as well. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. At this time, I would like to recognize Mrs. Groenewegen.

I just have a few comments and I will conclude with my motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the numbers, but as Mr. Ramsay said, there are 838 square metres unaccounted for. That’s kind of embarrassing. At least I would be embarrassed. You are saying that’s a burned out section of the building, but it doesn’t say…Okay. It says total building, vacant space, GNWT space, NGOs. If you add all that up, there is 838 square metres missing. Now if you say it’s a burned out section of the building someplace, that’s great, but say “burned out section of the building, 838 square metres.” So the numbers do not add up. Trust me, I have a calculator here.

Mr. Chairman, this whole thing is bad on so many fronts. First of all, it’s bad to throw away $3.5 million in a building that potentially won’t be used after two years. It is bad that nobody is stepping up and taking responsibility or any accountability for this kind of planning. That’s bad. That looks very bad on this government. If I had even an ounce of assurance that maybe this $3.5 million would extend the life of this building more than two years, that maybe the code requirements would make it so that we could use it for 10 years, I could probably swallow this. But to say two years for $3.5 million, then we have more money than we have brains. That’s a sad state for any government to be in.

There is a motion on the floor. The motion is being distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chairman, as my colleague Mrs. Groenewegen has said, the people of Fort Simpson deserve better. They deserve to know that there is going to be a long-term solution and answer in getting this piece of infrastructure established. That is probably the most important reason why I am voting against this. We really are not helping this community. We are going to end up disappointing them again because beyond the two to four years that this program might keep the building open, there is nothing.

Mr. Chairman, as has already been said here, it’s an embarrassment that this request has made it this far in the process. The ability of MLAs and committees to make good decisions, prioritize things, have been absolutely comprised by government’s mishandling of this. I deeply resent the politics that the government has forced upon Members on this side. Some of us doing something we believe is important for community, a small community, a rural community. Others who are looking at a responsibility and a duty that we have to hold the government to account and to get good value and good measure for taxpayers’ dollars. That is what the government is doing. I feel like I am part of a public squabble here. This is the decision that I have to make. It’s very uncomfortable. It compromises me with my colleagues. It certainly compromises me with the relationship that I would like to have with the government departments in helping to make these kinds of decisions in a consensus process.

I really feel betrayed in this whole thing, but I am going to do what I feel is the right thing for our institution and I really believe for the community of Fort Simpson to ensure that they do have a long-term solution. This is just a band-aid and I cannot abide by it, Mr Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the motion. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Just a brief point to the motion, Mr. Chairman, and following up with what Mr. Braden said, we would like to pride ourselves on making good decisions and having good judgment as Members of this House. This is taking away our ability to do that and I can’t believe that anybody feels good about this decision. I can’t believe that anybody on this side of the House feels good about it. Nobody on this side can feel good about it. I bet you even the folks at Public Works and Services don’t feel good about this, or at Education, Culture and Employment. I think anybody who had to be part of bringing this forward at this 11th hour cannot be feeling good about it and I think that’s a very crying shame. Having said that, I move the motion.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion.

Question.

All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Page 27, Education, Culture and Employment, capital investment expenditures, advanced education and careers, $4.867 million.

Agreed.

Education, Culture and Employment, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $17.203 million.

Agreed.

Page 28, Transportation, capital investment expenditures, corporate services, not previously authorized, $22,000.

Agreed.

Highways, not previously authorized, $4.903 million.

Agreed.

Road licensing and safety, not previously authorized, $147,000.

Agreed.

Transportation, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $5.072 million.

Agreed.

Page 29, Industry, Tourism and Investment, capital investment expenditures, corporate management, not previously authorized, $12,000.

Agreed.

Economic development, not previously authorized, $607,000.

Agreed.

Industry, Tourism and Investment, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $619,000.

Agreed.

Page 30, Environment and Natural Resources, capital investment expenditures, forest management, not previously authorized, $320,000.

Agreed.

Wildlife, not previously authorized, $74,000.

Agreed.

Environment and Natural Resources, capital investment expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $394,000.

Agreed.

Bill as a whole? Bill 2. Does committee agree to go clause by clause?

Agreed.

Bill 2, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1, 2006-2007. At this time we're going to stand down the clauses and turn to page 4, schedule, committee. Schedule, part 1, vote 1, operations expenditures, total supplementary appropriation for operations expenditures, $69.246 million.

Agreed.

Part 2, vote 2, capital investment expenditures, total supplementary appropriation, capital investment expenditures, $45.411 million.

Agreed.

Total supplementary appropriation, $114.657 million.

Agreed.