Madam Chair, on my left is Mike Aumond, deputy minister of Finance; on my right, Sandy Kalgutkar, deputy secretary to the FMB. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. General comments. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to welcome the Minister and department here today. I have just a kind of an opening general comment only because, as we become better at public accounts as some of the Members here on this side of the House, the whole issue of tangible capital assets and how we depreciate those assets as we prepare for the upcoming fall here, we see changes in what has not been spent according to the budget. We are looking now at those appropriations that are kind of a carry-forward for infrastructure.
My opening question is: How is depreciation now calculated with these tangible assets? Are we using a revised number? Are we using the actual number? How does this depreciated value move through the system as we prepare for public accounts reporting? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. To give those specific details, I’d like to go to Deputy Minister Aumond.
Thank you. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Madam Chair. For projects that are the subject of the supp here, the carry-overs, the amortization of those assets will not be put into service until the projects are actually completed. Amortization for them does not start until the projects are complete and the assets are put into service. So if it’s a building project, the 40 year life, the schedule for that wouldn’t start until the building is put into service. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate that. I guess I’m just looking at your opening comments and it talks about this is the lowest in the past 10 years in terms of carry-over. You are using the term 21.3 percent.
Can you possibly give an explanation as to the possibilities why we are seeing such a lower carry-over than we have in years past? What has been the trend that has caused a lower carry-over? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. With the new capital process that came in process, it came live in the 16th Legislative Assembly. We are further down the line as far as understanding the costs of all projects. We have also been working really hard to actually make sure that projects are moving along in the timeline that was originally scheduled. There are always some unforeseen barriers or challenges, but for the most part, we are becoming more efficient at planning and having concrete numbers so that we’re able to get more of the projects done on time and as designed and intended.
So can the Minister elaborate? Has there been any one specific area of success? You know, we’re getting better projects? Are there more specifics to that or better estimates? Are we getting better control of our contractors, compliance with timelines? Can we maybe elaborate as to… I’m trying to foster what are those success issues here so that we can look at analyzing if we can use that in other areas of the government. Thank you.
Madam Chair, in the 16th Assembly there was a lot of questions around this. Back in that time the carry-overs were massive. I think I remember seeing one in the $90 million range. As a result, the Assembly worked really hard to put in a new capital process where we actually have to move further along as far as having a concept and a plan design and a Class C estimate, which allows us to have a far tighter idea of what the actual build cost is going to be, but it also allows us to have a more comprehensive build schedule. As a result of that, we have been able to get more solid contracts through our procurement process.
There are a lot of details here. There are a lot of things that can affect timing. For more specifics, I would like to go to Deputy Minister Aumond, please.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll just briefly follow up on Mr. Abernethy’s comments. Capital planning process that the Minister referred to injected more rigour into the process, so we have a better understanding about what it is we are trying to construct and what the cost might be.
The other factor I think that is at play, in addition to all those issues with our improvements to our own capital processes, we have a stable market now in terms of… On the bad news side, there’s not a lot of opportunity out there for capital projects other than what the GNWT has on the table right now. We are getting more bids than we were getting, say, five or six years ago on our projects, so the competitive field for our capital plan is a little bit more stable than it was perhaps four or five years ago. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister’s and deputy minister’s response. My final area of questioning has to do with where we sit with respect to the Building Canada Plan, which I believe ceased about over a year or two ago. There were some residual projects which I believe were tied to some old monies. I’m looking at the accounting aspect. We cleaned up a lot of that money with the Infrastructure Canada plan we prepared for the Corridors for Canada III, which is a whole new other aspect of infrastructure and building.
Can we get, maybe, a broad overview? Have we used all the provisional monies that were set aside under the original Building Infrastructure Plan? Are some of those monies still reflected in this current infrastructure carry-over? Are we fait accompli? Thank you.
There’s, I guess, a small amount of BCP money reflected in this carry-over, some for MACA for community governments for some water treatment plants and the residual amount in DOT. I would say we have probably spent 95 to 96 percent of the BCP funds that were available to us in the last tranche. We are eagerly awaiting details about how we can engage with the Government of Canada on the new round of Build Canada money that will be made available to the Northwest Territories and all other jurisdictions in Canada. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I have no more further general comments. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any further general comments? Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will follow in the same line of questioning. In that percentage of carry-overs, do we have some goals set? Is it expected that as we get longer in the tooth about the process of approving infrastructure in the fall moving forward for next year that we will get down to a lower threshold, like down to 15 percent let’s say? Is there a goal to do more of that in the future, to drop that number even more?
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We haven’t set a target like 5, 10, 15 percent, but our goal is always to do better and to get that percentage as low as we can. Ultimately, it would be great to get to a point where all the capital we budget for is completed in the year in which it’s budgeted, but there are always extenuating circumstances that may limit that or interfere with that. Our goal is to get it as low as possible and spend the money in the year that it’s allocated.
The other question I have is with the financial part of it and us having borrowing limits and stuff like that. It is actually probably a savings concern. Are we saving money in interest costs and stuff like that when we don’t spend all the money that is required under the infrastructure budget?
Very little savings at all as a result of this.
I’m just wondering: it would be nice for the government to set a goal to decrease this number as much as possible because the money out in the community, out in the territory, we’re talking about large sums of money, multi-millions of dollars going out in the regions and in the territory would have an economic spin. So for those people that there’s a lot of concern that the economy is slowing down and the fact that we would like to see more of that money out and spending itself in the economy, it would be nice to see the departments set a goal, especially the big project departments such as Transportation and some of the ones that have bigger projects. It would be good to set a goal to achieve it down to a certain point. I know there is always going to be some carry-over. We can’t get rid of all of it, but getting it down to a 15 percent goal in the next couple of years would be one thing that I would look for them to try to achieve.
Madam Chair, our goal is always to complete the projects in the year in which they are budgeted for, to spend the dollars in the year that they are approved and supported by the Legislative Assembly. Ultimately, we would like to have no carry-over and that’s our goal.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. General comments. Okay, moving to detail then. If you could please turn to page 5 in your document. Municipal and Community Affairs, infrastructure operations expenditures, community operations, $4.374 million.
Agreed.
Agreed. Total department, $4.374 million.
Agreed.
Thank you. Department of Education, Culture and Employment, infrastructure operations expenditures, labour development and standards, $269,000.
Agreed.
Total department, $269,000.
Agreed.
Agreed, thank you. Moving on to the Legislative Assembly, capital infrastructure expenditures, Office of the Clerk, $328,000. Total department, $328,000. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Some of the information on here is a bit different than what I looked at earlier in the week and there is an additional amount of $98,000 that, according to the provision here, is to provide funding for improvements to increase accessibility in the Legislative Assembly building. Can I get some more clarification on that entry? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Legislative Assembly, through direction of the Speaker and the Board of Management, are attempting to improve the accessibility of the Legislative Assembly and increase the ability for all of our residents to enter and enjoy this flagship facility that we have. These dollars are intended to help improve some of the accessibility issues here in the building, including some amendments to the bathrooms, putting the electronic push censors that will automatically open doors, remove some of the glass walls in the bathroom and public areas so that there is less restriction for persons with disabilities to come through the facility and gain access to this wonderful building that we call home. Thank you.
Thank you. So how many, I guess for clarity, just to understand the scope of the project, we’re putting a couple of automatic doors here in the Legislative Assembly, removing some glass and this is going to be almost $100,000. Am I correct in that assumption? Thank you.
There are a few more details. I have the specifics, which I can read off to the Member if he would like so that it’s on public record, or I can share it with committee, whichever the Member prefers.
Just for the sake because this is an addition here that I was unfamiliar with, if he could just briefly read through the highlights of what’s included in the $100,000, that would be appreciated. Thank you.
For the $98,000 its installing an electrically assisted door opening mechanism on the public wheelchair accessible washroom door and on the door to the wheelchair accessible washroom in the hallway behind the Chamber. This is estimated about $22,500. Installing an electrically assisted door opening mechanism on glass doors to Committee Room A and the library, which is estimated at $49,000. Install a companion seat in each of the two wheelchair access visitors galleries, which are up there and up there. Estimated cost is $11,500. Remove the glass door leading to the public washroom altogether to the back hall, which would require retile, patch replace and trim, which is about $2,500 and design fees for all the above work as well adds to the $98,000 cost. It’s intended to increase the accessibility and help move towards a more barrier-free facility so that all residents of the Northwest Territories can come in and enjoy this wonderful flagship building of the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
I appreciate the Minister going through that list here. Would I assume that at this point we would become barrier-free for complete public access, or are there other phases that we should be expecting or is this a one time? Thank you.
The building as it stands right now is compliant with the 2010 National Building Code with respect to accessibility. These will improve a number of the areas that have been challenged for some of our residents and enhance our accessibility. Going to barrier-free would require a significant amount of other work. We’d have to bring in some other professionals like CNIB to help us identify other areas that are working.
Earlier today I had an opportunity to meet with the NWT Council of Disabilities and the Speaker, and we walked through the building and looked at some of the areas that need some work. I will say that the president of the NWT council indicated that the building is accessible and is good. He identified a number of improvements, including the improvements that are here. He concurred with the improvements here and did recommend some additional work that will help move us more to barrier-free as opposed to accessible.
Thank you. That answers my questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Legislative Assembly, capital investment expenditures, total department, $328,000. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate my colleague’s questions and the Minister’s responses on this issue. This is, in fact, at least the second step that I know of. I believe that right in the 16th Assembly we did spend about $88,000 to do the first round of this. This is overdue. I’m very happy to see it going forward and I’m sure my colleagues will join me in supporting this.
The participation of people with disabilities is really a fundamental concept I think we all subscribe to and that has not been enabled with the current accessibility, even though we meet standards and we’ve made some strides to surpass those standards. So, yes, when people come to us, we want to be able to respond and I think this is the right step. So I certainly will be supporting this. I suspect it may not be a final step. I appreciate the Minister’s openness to further assessment from those with expertise on requirements for people with disabilities and I’ll stand ready to support anything else we need to do to ensure that this building, of all buildings in the Northwest Territories, has the best accessibility we can provide to those with disabilities.
So, no question, Madam Chair. I just wanted to comment on that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Legislative Assembly, total department, $328,000. Agreed?
Agreed.
