Debates of June 7, 2006 (day 7)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we left here last night, we had a few questions that we were looking for some answers to. Some of the ones that come to mind I wanted to know. I wanted to know the existing square footage of the Deh Cho Hall, the amount of that square footage which is now occupied by client departments of the GNWT and the amount of square footage occupied by non-government organizations who are co-habitants with government departments. That’s my first question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the building as it exists now is the total size of 4,488 square metres. The GNWT portion of that is: the district education council section is 1,469 square metres; Education, Culture and Employment is 344 square metres; Aurora College is 429 square metres; Department of Justice is 105 square metres.

For the non-government users: the John Tetso Memorial Library is 233 square metres; Open Door Society is 365 square metres; Multi Media Centre Society is 27 square metres; and, cultural centre is 187 square metres. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mrs. Groenewegen.

That was a pretty fast list there but I was trying to do the math here. Could the Minister pass something out with this on it and maybe even has the GNWT client departments added up and maybe the NGOs added up, so that we could get a sense? Draw us a picture; this is the whole building, this is the government part, this is the NGO part and this is the vacant part. That’s what I am looking for.

Also, Mr. Chairman, while we are getting that…Are we getting that? Mr. Chairman, are we going to get that?

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will provide a summary of the building usage, the complete facility as it is, the GNWT users and then the non-government users. I will leave it to the Members to do the addition. I don’t have that tallied up by GNWT and non-government users. We do have the square footage for all occupants and then the total facility as it stands is calculated. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I will look forward to seeing that. I think we are allowed to ask hypothetical questions in Committee of the Whole. If you were building a building just for your government client departments, would these amounts remain consistent? Are they just taking up large amounts because they are in an old building with big rooms or under the standards of space that would be allowable to them, how does that compare with what they have now versus what they would mean under PWS standards for allowable sizes for offices and common areas, et cetera? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the space occupied by the GNWT users is relatively the same, approximately 320 square metres less would be what we would look at for our current requirement. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I need time to add up these numbers here, but, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask the Minister, did PWS consider what their costs would be, what their lease costs would be if they went out to tender for this space to be provided by a private developer? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I stated yesterday, the department, the recommendation by Public Works and Services to the department was a couple of options and ultimately one, the best value for money long term would be replacement of this facility. Once that project is agreed to -- and that would have to be agreed to ultimately through the building or business planning process coming up in September -- if that is agreed to then the department, we would have to look at should we build our own or should we now go out for lease space. So that decision is yet to be made. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the fire marshal’s report and the deficiencies that need to be corrected in the building to bring it up to code which constitute this over $3.5 million, have you had any discussion with the fire marshal as to the absolute outside limit date on occupancy and the undertaking of those corrections? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if we do not show a plan to repair the immediate requirements that we’ve been instructed to do, then the occupancy, we could be terminated as early as this summer. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Well, that’s good to know, Mr. Chairman, because I still think that there is readily available land which is already zoned for the purposes of a building like this in Fort Simpson in a very prime location and I think that answer says that there is at least a small window of opportunity to have some more discussion on this. I think that’s what we should do. I mean, what you have to do is show a plan and maybe your plan is that everybody’s moving out anyway. Because you’re going to move into leased premises. I haven’t given up on that idea that that could be provided and delivered by a private developer much more quickly than the Minister probably anticipates. Yesterday he mentioned something like two to four years. I think that’s if the government was building and I think that if they had a sense of what they wanted and could consult with the community quickly enough they could come up with something much more quickly than that.

I guess, Mr. Chairman, I’m just…I don’t mind spending money. I don’t mind investing money. But I hate wasting money. You know, when this need has come to our attention for something in Fort Simpson, I by no means begrudge the folks of Fort Simpson and the surrounding area good quality facilities that meet their need. That’s not what this is about. What I have a problem with is putting $3.5 million into a building because of poor planning that ultimately could, unless we just did a renovation of that building and those upgrades meet the code, are incorporated into, are considered just the first phase of a renovation program, then I guess it wouldn’t be to the same degree of loss, but I’m not prepared to, from what I know, make a determination as to whether or not that’s a good investment.

But if we’re going to spend $3.5 million to increase or extend the life of a building by two to four years and then tear that building down, I’m embarrassed, and I think the whole government should be embarrassed by such a plan. I thought earlier today I could sit down and say $3.5 million equals this and this and this to put this in perspective, but we all know we don’t need to do that. Three-point-five million dollars is a lot of money and it equates to a lot of infrastructure on the ground, or a lot of government positions, or a lot of assistants in our classrooms and our education system. I mean, it’s quite unthinkable that we could waste this kind of money. So I will be letting other Members speak to this, obviously, but I’m going to put forward a motion to delete this and ask PWS and the Department of Education to come back with an alternative plan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, ultimately this House has the authority to direct us as it feels is the most appropriate action to take. Ultimately, as I said yesterday, there is no capital money in the budget to deal with Deh Cho Hall and that plan, even with this approval to do some renovations to keep it useable for the time being while we look at, as we’ve directed, the replacement of this facility, that plan would then have to go into the business plan process. The capital plan would then go before committee. If committee feels that renovation is the most appropriate means, then we would take that direction and go with the direction of the House. If committee wants to delete this, then so be it. We’ll have to come up with another plan as to what we do. Ultimately without this money approved, we will miss the deadline we have. The next session we have is October. Even for coming back with a plan, an alternate plan, we don’t have the authority to expend any money on this facility at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through the Minister Roland or directly I’d like to see if the client department, ECE, could help committee out with some of the background on this.

Mr. Chairman, as the Minister has just outlined, we do have a capital planning process. It normally takes a year or two of discussion and negotiation and preparation to even get a particular project in the cycle of, I guess competition with other projects before it may finally land on our desks here and we can actually approve a project. So it is a multi-year situation. The kind of project that the Deh Cho Hall is, is I guess a very routine, very ordinary kind of a project from a capital planning process, Mr. Chairman. We should have anticipated this or could have anticipated that this would be before us and potentially even work well underway, if not completed by now.

As we learned yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the departments have been dealing with this situation since 2002, at least three, maybe four years ago now, and nothing appeared on the routine capital planning process to give us a suggestion that we should be paying attention to this and doing something about it. Yet today we have this ultimatum before us that a major piece of Fort Simpson’s government infrastructure is going to be padlocked and shut down unless we all of a sudden shift all of our process, Mr. Chairman, all of the rules and procedures that have been very carefully built up over time to enable us to make good decisions, all of those rules and procedures and conventions have been swept aside and we have this gun to our heads.

This is the part of this process that I’m really, really unhappy with. What I wanted to find out about from the client department here relates to the kind of involvement that they have had in this and what they did or did not subsequently do. So I wanted to look especially, Mr. Chairman, at the role or the advice that it was getting from the fire marshal’s office that if the difficulties with the Deh Cho Hall have been basically flagged and under some kind of review since 2002, how is it that now, within the last few weeks, the fire marshal has laid this ultimatum down? Mr. Chairman, what advice did the fire marshal give ECE as the client department on timing or deadlines to bring the building up to code? Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Public Works and Services is the department that’s been in contact and dealing with the fire marshal’s office. The letter that was sent to one of our senior project managers was dated in January 2006. The fire marshal’s office has been involved for some time before that. It is an unfortunate situation where we are in the position we are. Ultimately, much work has been done, so the department has been dealing with this. It’s not like this is parachuted in and going to take over other projects. On an annual basis every department can put projects on the planning table, so to speak, and they would have to justify why their project would make the cut for that year and show up in the business plans as a potential approved project. Once that gets the first nod at business plans, we would then draft the draft main estimates including that for final vote of the Assembly. So each department would do its work based on the criteria that’s been set out in the capital planning process. A number of factors would be involved. There are five items, I don’t have them up front. We’ve presented that to committee a number of years ago on the capital plan process, and the department can bring forward their plan and it would compete with others. If it ranks as high through the ranking system and makes it right through the process to the business plans, ultimately it would be Members of this House that would direct that if it, in fact, it is a new place or a new renovation. Right now the department has opted with the recommendation that it be a replacement.

Yes, as I laid out yesterday, the first indication and involvement with the fire marshal’s office was dated back in 2002 and there’s been a number of correspondence, meetings since then. Ultimately we’ve been given the letter saying here’s what you have to do, here’s the timeline you have to meet. We’ve been working with the client department trying to complete this process. Unfortunately we missed the boat on the last capital planning exercise and are now in a position where we have to come forward in this manner through a supplementary appropriation to get the first part of this money to keep the facility open. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate the Minister’s very patient explanation of all this stuff, but you know, he’s pointed out one of the obvious stages in here, gaps, that for whatever reason or cause the routine step of getting this into the business plan was missed. One of the steps that I’m familiar with and very comfortable with when it comes to getting things into the business plan is bringing an issue or problem or situation before standing committee. I sit on the Standing Committee on Social Programs, which has oversight responsibility for ECE. I do not recall in the four or five years that I’ve been on that committee, Mr. Chairman, any mention whatsoever of a situation in Fort Simpson where the Deh Cho Hall is going to require some capital help. Nothing. Reminiscent, Mr. Chairman, of a certain situation regarding a treatment centre here in Yellowknife where the decision was made way off page without the consultation of the standing committee in what was going on. These are the kinds of things that I need on my side, my colleagues need in order for us to make good decisions, responsible decisions of which we’re going to be held to account for taxpayers’ money. That’s what’s missing here.

The question that I want to put to the Minister or the client department is to confirm or correct me in advising of whether or not any item was ever brought before Standing Committee on Social Programs regarding Deh Cho Hall.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe that at any time the standing committee was informed that we might be having to look at replacing this building. Mr. Chairman, there were extensive consultations with the MLA for the region over the past two years. The village council has been involved in the consultations, the band has been involved in the consultations, and unfortunately it appears that in the act of maintaining good consultation with the community, the step of informing the committee that this was an impending issue was overlooked.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Braden.

Yes, okay, I’ve got the information or the confirmation that I was seeking here and that is that a significant part in the accountability process that we need to have on our side of the House was missed. That reason alone will justify my support of the upcoming motion to delete this item, Mr. Chairman. As I’ve said in the context of this debate before, I think just about everybody on this side has added their voice to we do not want to deny Fort Simpson a valuable part of their community infrastructure, but we’ve got to be able to hold the government to account on the way decisions are made. That’s the issue before us today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand where committee members are feeling those. I’ve mentioned this quite a number of times about the planning, the process, where we find ourselves now, and as I said earlier, ultimately it’s this House that will direct how things are going and the final accountability happens here on the floor. So the Member has mentioned the motion as well as another Member mentioned she’s prepared to move the motion, so I suggest that if that’s the consensus, then let’s get on with the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn’t be adverse to going straight into the motion because I am going to support the motion to delete this item for a variety of reasons. I think other Members here today and yesterday have discussed how it is that we’ve arrived here at the 11th hour having to spend $3.5 million on a building that might have a life expectancy of two to four more years. It’s a complete, in my mind, waste of money without a plan to address the office requirement needs in Fort Simpson. It doesn’t sound like the Minister has a plan to do that. There’s been a lot of talk about, well, it’s not in the capital plan. Ultimately, whose responsibility is it that it’s not in the capital plan? That’s what I was trying to get at yesterday. I believe ultimately somebody’s responsible and the Minister stated himself that consultation took place with the Member from there, the village, but one key important ingredient, Mr. Chairman, was there was never any consultation with the people who approve the spending in this government, and that’s us. All of us. Here we are at the 11th hour with a gun to our head, like I said yesterday, and it’s not fair, it’s not appropriate and I will certainly be supporting the motion.

Also, while I’ve got the floor, I wanted to mention to the Minister I’m not sure where he got all the information on the numbers at the Deh Cho Hall, but, Mr. Minister, in my calculations you have about 8,700 square feet unaccounted for in your numbers if you do the math, and I challenge you to go back and look at the numbers. You’re missing about 8,700 square feet of space according to your numbers and I’m not just making that up. With that, Mr. Chairman, I think we’re covering a lot of ground we covered yesterday and I think that’s important, but let’s get on with the motion and let’s have this out. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As to the numbers, the paper that’s been handed out to Members now, the total space used now is 4,488 square metres. That includes government and non-government. The portion of the government usage is split out and, as I read out earlier, the amount of square footage that are occupied by GNWT users and then the square footage by non-GNWT users. There are sections of the building that was involved in a fire in the past and sections of that building have been not used since then, and it’s not our intent to renovate that portion of the building or to do the repairs to that. As well, we stated for a new facility we’re targeting $10 million and that would be just for the GNWT users with that. So that’s the last comment I would have on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve mentioned this numerous times before. Again, I don’t understand if you have a requirement for office space in Fort Simpson why we don’t go to tender and try to get the office space that we need built. Again, I mean this is the first time I’m seeing any of this information as it comes through a supplementary appropriation and it’s not right, Mr. Chairman. I just want to mention that again. I think it’s not fair to put Regular Members in this position that we’re in today. It’s not fair to the residents of Fort Simpson either and I want to mention that as well. Thank you

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think we can find in the past where we have, through this process, established capital programs whether it be renovation or replacement because of timelines and urgency if we had a failure in a facility would come through this process. Why can’t we go for office space leases at this point? We would need the authority of this House. We can’t just go out for space at this time for a lease. Right now we’re in an owned facility and to change that direction, again, the department would have to bring it forward and get that approval through the process we have in place. So I mean I can’t add any more further to this discussion, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think the question begs to be asked, well, why didn’t we go to tender three years ago or four years ago when we knew this was the case? If you want the approval of this Assembly to do that, I’m looking down the row here and across the way and I’m sure the will would be there. If there’s a need in Fort Simpson for office space, the desire and the will amongst the Members here to get that done would be there, but it just wasn’t done, Mr. Chairman. I think that’s the problem. It should have went to tender years ago, not arrive here on the floor of the House today in the state that it’s in and I think that’s the key point in this. I think the Minister still has an opportunity to go to tender. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, ultimately we need to find space. Spaces where we’re occupied at this time we would lose the opportunity to use that space. Going out for a tender at this time we still wouldn’t have a building in place for more than a year to complete what’s required. I suggest we’d be lucky to get it completed and people moved in in two years if we were to pull something off the shelf and just say we need so much square footage office space. There is some office space, there’s a learning centre. So there’s different types of spaces here that are required, but ultimately that could be the final decision as we proceed down here. But what we find ourselves now is to make sure we have existing space available for those staff that are on the ground today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Just this whole issue is we have an opportunity to go over it again at length and we went over it yesterday and as a MLA for Nahendeh that represents Fort Simpson and the issue where this building stands is that I have to tell committee again is, it’s not something that’s been thrown on the books on this supp here two weeks ago, it’s something that I’ve been working with the community, all levels of the community. Everyone is concerned about the building and the infrastructure and what to do with it and what’s the best way we could plan around it. A lot of what kept getting put off for different reasons, changes in administration, changes in mayorships and everybody has got to be brought up to speed again. It’s no surprise that it’s come to supp level and they’ve let us throw in the fire marshal’s report. That’s something that’s been there for some time, too. As to why it wasn’t addressed before, I can’t answer that, but I cannot support the solution that the government is offering here. I mean I cannot support the motion committee members are putting forward to do away with the solution that the government is offering. I appreciate the Members’ concerns about leasing and buying new buildings and that will be addressed in due time, but the solution now is what are we going to do with that building and this is the only solution there is, is to retrofit it and continue with the life of that building.

As for knowing every single issue in every Members’ riding, that takes a super Herculean effort. It would be a super human feat to do that and I don’t blame you if this is the first time you saw it or heard about it. Like, I brought you guys to Simpson and I showed you the building, but to know every single issue in everybody’s riding is impossible. I would just like to do with that and to ask the Minister as well I guess, Mr. Chair, leasing building spaces and purchasing new and the retrofit to the building, are all those questions that had been addressed over the past three years? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Minister.