Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a number of comments, many of which have been expressed already by my colleagues and I’m sure will be expressed again, but I feel they are important enough that I will repeat them.
You know, at the outset, I want to say that I agree with the fiscal strategy which has been outlined by the Finance Minister both last year and this year. I think it is the right way for us to go, and the fact that we’ve scaled back our capital budget for this year as compared to last year is a good thing. We don’t need to be putting ourselves in a situation where we are stressing ourselves to the max, particularly with the Deh Cho Bridge Project now in our lap as well.
I’d like to say that I think the changes to the planning process are proving to be beneficial and I think both Ministers have alluded to that already. I believe, and I’m glad to hear the Minister say, now that we are approving the capital budget in the fall, that it is having a beneficial and positive impact on the work that we’re doing.
I do have some concerns in terms of carryovers. We’ve had huge dollar values of carryovers in previous years and at some point in time I would like to get the information of the carryover from this current capital fiscal year and how it’s going to impact on the budget that we are discussing right now.
Again, a positive note, I’m really glad to see a continued focus on deferred maintenance. I think it’s been a specific focus of our capital budgets. I think this is the third or fourth year ongoing now and I think it’s making a difference in our properties and our assets and I think it’s certainly a way that we want to continue to go.
As well, I am impressed with sort of a bit of a shift in thinking. I think Minister McLeod referred to it as thinking outside of the box, but particularly in terms of our heating requirements, innovative heating requirements and energy adaptations for new buildings and particularly referencing the computer centre here in Yellowknife and that we are using waste heat from power plants, we are looking at geothermal. All of those things are positive and they will assist us in keeping our infrastructure costs down, so I would hope that that is going to continue.
In terms of the Housing Corporation, I know that it’s not officially part of the budget, but I do need to comment on the declining federal dollars relative to operation and maintenance of our housing stock. We increasingly add to our housing stock, we build new units, we replace new units but we also build many new units. At the same time, I don’t see that we have a plan to deal with the O and M costs that are going to be more and more on the backs of this government as opposed to the federal government through the next 15, 20, 30 years. So I think it’s something that I know that the government is aware of it and is working on it, but I think it’s something that we need to stop hoping that the federal government will bail us out. I wouldn’t say stop fighting. We definitely need to keep fighting for the money, but I think we also need to put a contingency plan in place and I don’t sense that that is out there.
To me, it points to a need for the Housing Corporation to do a significant evaluation and analysis of their policies, and to totally revamp them and revise them so that they work for our current situation that we’re in and the times that we’re in.
I do have a concern with the lack of projects in the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, specifically with regards to Yellowknife. We have received or we have seen a 10-year education facility plan for Yellowknife. I am concerned that the recommendations from that plan, that report, are not reflected in this capital budget. I am particularly concerned about Aurora College with a lease that expires in 2012, with Sissons School which is badly in need of renovations and upgrading, and with Mildred Hall School which needs completion to their renovations which have never actually been done. I see no indication in the budget or in future years that these things are going to be looked at, so that’s a general concern.
Like Mr. Bromley, I would like to see analysis or evaluation of MACA’s infrastructure contribution formula for communities. I gather that I think we have been told that that is in the works. I certainly hope if it’s not in the works that it’s going to be in the works. Certainly the amount of infrastructure contributions to our communities for capital has been pretty much steady for quite a number of years and it really needs to be evaluated. Community infrastructure deficit is only growing. It never seems to go down, it always seems to go up. This is something that this government has to be aware of. I would like to see an evaluation and an update of that contribution formula certainly before the next capital budget.
In terms of our general capacity for capital projects, I’d like to know the impact of the Deh Cho Bridge Project on our capacity to deal with capital projects. We have been kept up to date over time as the Deh Cho Bridge Project has progressed and changed and we’ve been updated, and I thank the Minister of Transportation for that. But I do have a bit of a concern that in continually increasing our infrastructure capacity we’re adding more buildings, but we also have a Deh Cho Bridge Project which impacts our ability to finish these projects, to get them completed on time. That’s just a general concern.
I am, as Mr. Bromley, concerned about the way that this government in general accounts for operations and maintenance costs for new buildings. In terms of capital projects, we’re very much up front about the cost for the project and it gets substantiated. Once the building comes on line all of a sudden it’s kind of like the government goes, oh, gee, we have to heat this, we have to put lights on, and so on and so forth. Those costs are not planned for. They need to be. When we know a building is coming on line in the fall of any particular year, that budget year needs to include operations and maintenance costs for that new building. It’s a change in perhaps budget planning that I think is coming, but I don’t see much evidence of it. It really is an important part of our operations and maintenance budget. I do appreciate that we are starting to get better O and M costs in the project substantiations for capital projects. I think that’s a really good start, but we now have to take the next step and put those O and M costs into the operations budget.
Lastly, I just want to comment on the capital infrastructure budget binder which we received. The documents were easy to understand and I particularly appreciate having the project substantiation documents in the binder up front so that if there are any questions, it can be looked at. There’s an awful lot of information in those projects’ substantiation documents. I appreciate having that up front.
I will have questions about specific projects when we get into departments, but that’s all I have for now.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank the Member for her comments and some of the feedback she’s provided on her take of the benefits and the positive results we’re seeing and some of the changes we’ve made in the last little while.
Of course, there are concerns that all of us recognize up front, including carryovers. It’s always been an issue and historically we’ve seen that number grow. I’m pleased to report that this coming year we would expect that amount is going to be a lot less than we’ve seen. We’re still crunching the numbers. We don’t have all the numbers in, but as of today we know that the percentages are down quite a bit. For example, over the last couple of years we’ve seen carryovers from Public Works and Services of up to 35 percent and we would expect that number this year to be down to 20 percent. As the year goes on and we are more comfortable with what the carryovers will be, we’ll provide that information to committee.
We are certainly focused on providing alternate energy and trying to be green as a government. This government has moved considerably in the last while and there are a lot of projects on the go. That includes projects here in Yellowknife. The new office building that we’re contemplating and proposing here is something we would expect to have biomass heating and have the ability to tie other offices, other buildings that are in proximity to it. We are working on a new hospital in Hay River and that facility also would be something that would be considered for biomass heating. All our new facilities as part of the design and as part of the planning process would be reviewed and see how we can include alternate energy or more energy efficient systems in this part of the project.
Again, we’d have to defer the comments on NWT Housing Corporation for review of their policies to their Minister for when that Minister is up for review.
The YK school plan is something we think will be a very valuable document, however, the document was not completed at the time when we put our capital budget together. It will certainly be an instrument or a tool that we’ll use next year as we develop our capital budget and it will be a guide that will be very useful for us.
The infrastructure funds that are earmarked for municipalities are something that has a review. I believe it’s biannual and that’s something that I would expect is coming up fairly shortly.
I’ll defer the comments on the Deh Cho Bridge and its impact on overall fiscal resources of our government in the area of capital to my colleague Mr. Miltenberger.
I want to point out, though, finally, that the O and M costs that the Member has raised is a concern and is included as part of the planning studies. Maybe it’s not communicated as well as could be. We have heard from the committee that this is a concern and we have flagged it so that it will be included in next year’s budgets. It will be clearly demonstrated for next year in the substantiation documents so that everybody will know what the O and M is and it will be very obvious and up front.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just quickly in regard to the Deh Cho Bridge, it has not had a negative impact on the capital plan that’s before us. We are all aware of the process that happened with the federal Minister of Finance and the negotiation for a $75 million a year bump-up for five years in terms of our general borrowing limit. The fiscal plan we laid out and continued to follow predates some of the more recent activities. As well, once the bridge is concluded here, hopefully in the fall, it will be, for the most part, self-liquidating costs through the revenues it’s going to generate. We are still going to stick with our fiscal plan, which is going to see us coming down to a more sustainable and historical levels of capital planning, but that will be a full discussion for the new incoming 17th Assembly to confirm that or change that.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Next on my list is Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Overall I feel that the infrastructure and capital planning of the GNWT has improved over the last few years. I’ve started to see some changes to infrastructure in smaller communities. I still feel that there is a huge infrastructure deficit in small communities. Recognizing that through the New Deal that capital planning for a lot of the infrastructure upgrades in the small communities are now the responsibilities of those communities, I also have to say that I feel that the money given to the small communities for capital through MACA and directly to the municipalities should have been kept in pace with at least the CPR inflation or whatever number that is necessary to use, to ensure that they weren’t seeing eroding dollars every year by the inflation amount. I would like to have seen the capital infrastructure into the communities sitting probably at around $32 million as opposed to $28 million at this time.
The support and infrastructure into the small communities would have a positive impact on the entire NWT. We have positive impacts in larger communities due to the fact that there would be less government supports such as need for programs in the area of wellness and addictions and so on if the employment was increased in small communities. We have a couple of ridings in the small communities that are completely, that employment rates are... Every community in a couple of ridings, including Tu Nedhe, have employment rates below 40 percent. That has a very negative impact on the community. There’s no work, so one thing leads to another and aside from the fact that this government is paying huge amounts of money to income support programs, it does have other impacts as well, such as people quit getting up day after day after day with no prospects of work. Eventually that has an impact on the kids attending school and so on. It ultimately has ripple effects impacting education down the road.
Specific to the capital plan, I think that for Tu Nedhe I was pleased that this government looked at putting together a Rural and Remote Communities committee that had an opportunity to increase things such as the Access Road Program. I’d like to see any money coming into the Rural and Remote Communities committee, some of which I guess is capital and some is going into the base. I think access road may be something as an example of going into the base.
I think that a winter road is a capital item, because I see winter roads appearing as capital items in here. I think that winter road to Lutselk’e is something that would be, recognizing that that community sits between 350 to 400 people and there’s a lot of need for people to at least haul some of their own freight in the winter months. If the road is only open for a month or two months, I think anytime you allow a community such as Lutselk’e to have an opportunity to drive out in their own vehicles and be able to pick up products and furniture or equipment, whatever is needed, even right to building supplies if need be in order to support themselves. As the current system lies, a person cannot really afford, no matter what type of income they have and especially compounded with low employment rates, could never really afford to build something. As an example, the cost of getting lumber in, the freight of getting lumber into a place like Lutselk’e without government assistance would be astronomical.
Again, under the community programs, I think that because of infrastructure deficits you’ll find the communities are building youth centres in Tu Nedhe or trying to switch various buildings around. I’d like to have the government in general, because in Lutselk’e as an example, where there’s a possibility that maybe the youth centre may already be a building that exists and that building could be used for that. Replace that building and use the new replacement building. As an example, building a new community hall and converting the community hall into a youth centre. That’s just an example. I’m not sure that that’s a reality, but that’s the type of thinking that has to go into the capital plan. I know I’ve been requested by both communities to have washrooms in the water treatment plant. An extra $20,000 would be needed to add a washroom in Lutselk’e. That’s a deficit in Fort Resolution that the water treatment plant doesn’t have a washroom. I know there’s a regulation that as long as somebody is not on site more than three consecutive hours, continuous hours, there’s not a requirement for a washroom on site, but it’s still needed regardless of what it says in the policy. So little things like that.
I think that Deferred Maintenance is a good program, important program. It’s a program introduced by Public Works. It’s been very good for schools, for the most part. Both the schools in Tu Nedhe have benefited from the Deferred Maintenance Program to the tune of well over $1 million in Fort Resolution Deninoo School and $300,000 spent. Although the money wasn’t spent in Lutselk’e, the money is there. So with the deferred maintenance being added this year, it should be a nice project for the community.
I think that there’s a need for daycare space. Whether it be added into the school or a separate new building, I think both communities need daycare space, good proper daycare space. I think that’s something we deal with and a lot of this stuff that I’m referring to, you know, are things recognizing that the budgets are tight as we all discuss, but I’m looking at three-year plans. If we are going to put three-year plans together, this is the type of thing I would like to see.
Inside the three-year plan also, the completion of Highway No. 6 to chipseal all of Highway No. 6 and not just a portion of it. I think we are, as a government, headed in the right direction, as far as that highway goes. I think I’d like to see more certainty by having some of that money put into a three-year plan.
ITI is also responsible for parks. I think that in Fort Resolution it was scheduled for a park. Because the community was unable to make a decision on where exactly they would like to see that, that money was pulled out and the Minister advised me it would be put back. I don’t see that in here at all.
I think we’re letting a policy or regulations, rules, increase costs to our projects. I find that to be a bit of a problem. For example, a simple renovation to somebody’s home, a lot of seniors can’t afford the materials, but the Housing Corporation will buy the materials. There’s not enough money there, but they are asked to put... Without liability insurance and so on, it’s difficult for the people to do their projects. I think the government should look at some of the requirements, loosening the requirements on some of the simple projects and allow people to hire their own carpenter, for example. I think I’m out of time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. I’ll go to Minister McLeod for a response.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once again, we are very pleased to hear that the Member has recognized that the capital process is improved and it’s working a lot better. The New Deal, of course, has changed the way we do business and our relationship with the community governments. It’s given the communities more responsibility and it’s also given them a lot more freedom and flexibility to invest in projects that they see fit. This was an issue that we heard for many years historically, about the inability of communities to decide what was their priority.
At the time of the New Deal coming into play, the communities would receive $17 million collectively, and that was reviewed and it was decided at that time that we would increase the dollars up to a $28 million budget. There have been a lot of good projects, as the Minister of MACA will report to you, and things are ongoing. The community is now part of the New Deal to develop long-term plans, sustainable plans. We are looking at a lot of projects that are coming forward; and very good ones, I have to add. We do review the O and M on a regular basis. The capital is something that has been reviewed. At this point we haven’t increased that number, but it is something that we can review to see if that is still a sustainable amount of money for the communities. We have not heard directly back from any of the communities that it wasn’t enough. However, having said that, there are probably communities that are going to say there’s never going to be enough.
The employment rates, of course, as the Member has indicated, are very important. It is important for us as a government to invest in all our communities so that there is job creation. That was something that we were very mindful of as we started with the 16th Assembly as a whole. We knew that the economy was really in a slump. Oil and gas, exploration and diamond mines were all reducing activity. We made a decision to invest a lot of money in the area of capital. I think it is really demonstrated that it has helped a lot of the communities. Most of the communities have projects that are ongoing. Most of the communities have invested their own dollars that they have received through the New Deal on projects. Housing, of course, through the Housing Trust has invested an historical high in the area of housing, with the construction of 700 houses and many repairs.
The winter road to Lutselk’e has been discussed a number of times before. Right now it is not part of our inventory, and we did look at it several governments ago to see the benefit of trying to bring a lot of the freight that was planned for. I think it was the arena that was being completed at the time. We looked at the cost and compared it to the use of a barge, and the barge system was a lot cheaper for us. I recognize that there has been one time that a road was constructed way back. There were certainly a lot of challenges, along with huge costs, and having to deal with safety issues such as pressure ridges, blow overs and just trying to keep the road open on the huge lake that is needed for a winter road to that community.
I would have to see what the need is for a request to put washrooms in the water treatment plant. Most of our facilities are in close proximity to the communities and other community facilities. I am not sure if there is a real requirement. This is the first I have heard of it. We will raise that issue. I am sure the Minister of MACA is listening.
The Deferred Maintenance is really a program that is, again, producing good results. The deferred maintenance across Canada is a huge issue. We are no different. We have had the ability to reduce our deferred maintenance by a considerable amount. It is a program that we need to have ongoing as facilities come up for review and are identified. That will keep going.
The school in Lutselk’e that the Member has raised, I indicated before that it is in the planning study right now and it is earmarked for this coming year. Those will give us better direction as to what the next steps will be, whether it is going to be retrofit, renovations or replacement. It will have to wait for those results.
The Highway No. 6 work has really been going well. We have had some good feedback from the community. The community has been satisfied with the way work has been going. This highway has been raised as an issue by the community for quite a few years. The work moving forward is really well received. However, as the Member has indicated, it needs to continue and we are working on doing so. We want to be able to, over the next while, completely renovate that road. We do have a plan for the completion, however, it’s dependent on funding, and funding can only be approved by this government on an annual basis. We’ve identified funding for the last little while this past year and we hope to have some money identified for next year. I can’t speak for the next government as to what they’ll do, so that will be something that will be raised with the Members of the next government.
The ITI parks, I will defer the issue to ITI when they come up for review, along with issues raised regarding home repairs. I think that would be better served raised with the Minister responsible. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to provide a few guiding comments to the overall budget process. First and foremost, the process, I am very pleased we continue this with the fall capital budget. As I’ve indicated for a long time, it’s good to see that it continues this way. Our budget numbers are summed up in groups, therefore we haven’t spec’d out individual numbers and we haven’t made it too easy for those people who are bidding on the maximum of what we estimate our potential budget on a particular item is.
I have had a number of contractors tell me, though, even though the government has switched the capital plan to the fall, that some contractors still cite there are still issues with timing, tendering, and they are curious as to why it is still taking so long to get tenders out in a timely way. And if I may be so bold, that’s the whole idea why it shifted to the fall session of October, to ensure we get them out in a more timely way.
That said, my suggestion to the Minister would be I would encourage the Minister and his staff to reach out to the NWT Construction Association and poll its members and ask them how they feel it’s working. It’s great to be sitting here in the Assembly to be able to say this is how it works, but we should be asking and polling some of the real people out there who do this type of work, and accessing the advice, and even guidance at times from the NWT Construction Association would be a good place to start. I think it would be quite useful for our organization.
That said -- that’s from a contracting point of view -- I would also encourage the Minister of Finance and his officials to perhaps reach out to the NWT Chamber to ask them if the timing of the way we release our budget has positively or negatively affected its members on opportunities of bidding in a fair and reasonable way, to make things like construction seasons or, for example, freeze-up and breakup, when you have to get office products or hospital products up to a region, that the only way to get it there is either over the top or up the Mackenzie River. Are we appropriately setting the timing of our budget that works for them?
Again, it’s more a point about getting the appropriate feedback. It’s great that we can sit in these towers here and say things are great on the land, but once in awhile it’s certainly worth the walk down and asking the people on the ground what it’s like and is it working for them. These decisions, devoid of their input, are really just decisions that could have little or no meaning.
Mr. Chairman, one particular issue I raised during the review process -- and I’m getting the sense that there is positive feedback early on -- is the full capital planning operations cost. What I mean by that is it’s easy to do a quick shift and replace a building and realize the operational cost would be relatively the same. It’s easy to assume that. But when we establish a new facility, whether it’s, for example, a hospital, a seniors centre, a new school, quite often what we are voting on is the ideals of a particular project. When we support that project at its construction costs, we are not fully taking into the lifecycle costs and, therefore, it’s difficult to predict that. So we are making decisions, in essence, without the full information.
As I understand it, there is some agreement within the Department of Finance and probably Public Works to say we’ll work to include some of that information. That’s a very important point I was trying to get at. We have to realize what we are agreeing to.
I once heard someone say we’ll help a person buy a truck, but they weren’t going to buy them the insurance, not going to pay for the gas and the operations, those types of things. So it’s easy to get a free truck, but can they afford to operate that? That’s my point here: understanding the operational costs over the lifecycle of the building. Building or asset, I should define it that way. It doesn’t hit us that year when we agree to put in a new health centre, for example, it hits us two or three years down the road when all of a sudden we now have to add another $1.5 million to count for the electric bill, we have to count for the oil bill, the water bill, those types of things. We need that information. Like I say, as I understand it, there is some willingness to consider those things.
Another area of concern of mine is the stimulus effect of investment of capital dollars. I raised during the capital planning process here that I think it’s very important that we find a policy framework that can help identify regional investment even if it was a regional investment based on a minimum theory. Every region is not the same, so it would be difficult to come up with an ideal framework that works every time, but the point being if we could find a way to stimulate every region, ensure that capital investment happens in a way that suits a particular region best, and certainly territorial capital dollars are being spread throughout the Territory and I think that creates a bit of a network where people are pleased. They see the government and no region feels like it’s being left behind.
Certainly, in a consensus style government, my view is we have to double check everything we do, to make sure every region feels they are part of the process and not being ignored. At times I find that these capital plans spend more time worrying about what the department feels, but from time to time I think there should be more outreach to MLAs, asking MLAs what they think should go into their area. I’ll tell you, when you hear concerns in the House, quite often you hear we’ll look at it, we’ll think about it, but that’s where the end of that discussion goes. But I’ll tell you, if you are in a community region, as many of my colleagues here in the House are from, they will tell you about specific on-the-ground projects that have a major impact on their community.
So it’s important for a Yellowknife Member to support community Members in reasonable ways and I think that’s certainly reasonable.
Mr. Chairman, I did want to highlight just a small area specifically in the budget, or I should say what isn’t in the budget, and that is the continued lack of investment in a couple of schools in my riding of Yellowknife Centre; namely Mildred Hall and Sissons School.
Mildred Hall has already been cited by one Member previously as having had received most of a renovation when it had a renovation a few years ago. It’s a shame and considered an embarrassment that the government didn’t fulfill what I believe is its full obligation to make sure that we had things like their windows replaced, which was part of the renovation plan, but never got in. As well as the fact that the gymnasium that it has is still not adequate for the school. I’m not sure if the fact that it keeps not showing up in the budget is a plan by divine intervention or whatnot, but I think it’s very important, because it affects the operating costs of the school board. They have to make sure they adjust properly, work around these problems. Maybe it’s the Finance Minister’s or the Public Works Minister’s choice not to invest in these particular areas and hoping that maybe the Health and Social Services Minister will pick up the fact that the kids may have more colds and need winter jackets to be able to sit in those classrooms because of the fact that the windows leak with cold air coming in in the winter. I’m not sure what the theory is behind that.
As well, Mr. Chairman, Sissons School continues to be shown as a school being overlooked. Now, you’ll hear from the Minister of Finance or certainly the Minister of Public Works say we’re still working this out with the school boards about how to balance schools fairly throughout the capital. That is very true, but the reality here is we are avoiding proper investment into a school that needs to be upgraded mechanically, as well as to facilitate educational planning and delivery that’s happening in the school, which is Sissons.
This is an important point that I certainly hope somebody pays attention to. This will still be a public institution, and the longer we continue to ignore that and we say we’ll wait for the school boards to sort it out and then we’ll support it, the fact is we are just continuing to ignore real maintenance on this particular school that needs to be done. So we are punishing the school or maybe the school system, in my view.
The fact that this type of support is being ignored until the school boards work it out, but as I said earlier, this will always be a public institution. If the government doesn’t want to maintain it and maybe it’s long-term plan is to maybe...(inaudible)...it off from the government plan such as to give it away, force the school to give it away, et cetera, maybe that’s why they don’t want to spend any money on it. I mean, you see that practice. People stop investing because they don’t want to be part of the system anymore. But the reality is, it’s my view that Sissons will always be a public institution in some form. It’s been talked about trying to work it out with YK No. 1 and the Catholic School Board and perhaps even Aurora College to do a shuffle there. These are choices that need to be made by those boards. It’s not for me to say one way or the other, but as I said, there will be territorial capital dollars under the umbrella of public institutions always there.
Mr. Chairman, that sort of wraps up an overview of my concerns and comments at this point. I will be speaking specifically to specific projects as we reach that page when we get there. Thank you kindly.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. We’ll go to Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am happy to hear that the Member is pleased, at least with the process. He’s raised a number of concerns, the first one being the issue of tenders still being put out later than we would anticipate because of the change in the timing and the approval process. I think that is a concern that has also been voiced by the NWT Construction Association, although they are very pleased that we have changed the timing of our capital budget approval. They’ve endorsed it. We have consulted with them.
Our challenge, of course, over the last two years is the number of projects we have to deliver and have out the door every year and although it’s a good challenge, it’s a difficult one. We have our capital plan and also all the projects under Deferred Maintenance and some really strict deadlines put in place with some of the federal funding programs.
The positive side of it, though, is we have delivered, for the most part, all our projects this year. For example, we have 95 percent of our projects out either in construction or in the process. The fall schedule is really something that we feel is a good one as a government, as departments. It gives us certainty on what projects are moving forward and allows us to design and it allows us to draft specs and put tender documents together a lot sooner than we would have through the old system. We would have really been challenged had we not changed our approval system to this new one.
I want to point out again to the Member that we have included O and M costs in the planning process. We apologize if that wasn’t apparent enough, but we have flagged that and it will be clearly demonstrated in next year’s substantiation documents that are presented to the Members.
There are two types of costs when we talk about O and M and new facilities. There is the rigid O and M costs that are incorporated in any facility that we take on and, of course, there is the program costs that are reviewed and sometimes increased as the facility is put in place, whether the facility is new or changed or program specific. So that is something that is really the responsibility of departments.
The issue that the Member raised about identifying regional investment and taking into consideration the economic activity of the community or the region or where the project is going to go is, of course, a difficult one. Our system is based on need. We identify projects that are of highest need. That is compiled by the different departments that have infrastructure projects. The focus is on protecting people and protecting assets. Those come through and come forward, they are identified during the summer months and come forward and are reviewed. There are two committees that act as filters that make sure all the information is correct and in place. Once that’s all done, the Deputy Ministers Committee forwards it to the FMB and it’s also reviewed at that point and provided for review by the Members. It’s a fairly comprehensive process that we’ve put in place and it’s been working quite well.
About asking MLAs what they would want to see in the writing, I think that’s something that already happens. I think we hear very clearly from each Member that has a capital interest in certain projects, that that is something that’s usually quite evident in this House or in terms of correspondence and private discussions. That is something that is part of our process.
Of course, we have a limited budget. There was an issue raised about some of the schools; Mildred Hall and Sissons. The Mildred Hall School I think had a limited budget, as the Member indicated, and it would have to be up to the appropriate Department of ECE to do the legwork on it and bring it back. In terms of the maintenance on Sissons School that was raised and identified as an issue that we should look at, that right now is not something that Public Works and Services or any of our departments provide for that facility. That is something that is contracted out. ECE provides the maintenance dollars directly to the boards and they do it on their own. There is, and has been, some retrofits in some of the schools. That is, of course, on behalf of ECE and that is done by the board.
I put it out to a question earlier, that there is a fairly comprehensive strategy that’s been put together for all the schools in Yellowknife, and that is something that will be used as a guide as we move forward and work with the different school boards and the members of this community of Yellowknife.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Ministers and their staff for being with us this afternoon. I know a lot of this has probably already been covered, but I just wanted to highlight a few things while I’ve got the floor.
Obviously I’m a big supporter of the Deferred Maintenance Program. I think the Department of Public Works and Services has done a good job, the government has done a good job in that area, and I’d like to say that I appreciate that.
Also, the new capital planning process is not so new anymore. I think this is the third year and I do believe it was the right decision. Money has been getting out the door. I’m interested to see if, indeed, the carryovers will continue to trend downwards. I guess the less capital money we have to spend in years to come, obviously the carryovers are going to come down too. Hopefully, as a percentage, we’ll be able to tell if indeed that’s making a difference.
If I could, missing from the capital plan, I know the Minister just mentioned the comprehensive education facility plan that was done here in Yellowknife for schools and educational facilities in the capital. I share the concerns that other Members have. I don’t know why nothing is in this capital plan to address that plan that was done. Something should be here. The work was done, it was presented to MLAs over a year ago, or close to a year ago, so I’m surprised that nothing has materialized in the plan.
There is going to be a need for a dedicated campus for Aurora College here in Yellowknife, that’s for sure. It’s interesting to see how the government can look at office space requirements in a city like Yellowknife and figure out in short order that the government for future government operations is going to save millions and millions of dollars if it builds its own dedicated office facility. But then when it comes to an education facility like a college campus, like a dedicated court facility, we just don’t seem to have the same willpower or horsepower or resources to look at that in any meaningful way. My belief is the government -- and I’m thinking long-term here, 20 or 30 years out -- will have tremendously more resources if we make the investment today and get away from especially specialized areas.
That courthouse, I’m not sure how many times the government has paid for that courthouse facility over and over again. It’s very specialized. Highly specialized. We need to again address the fact that the Northwest Territories does not have a dedicated stand-alone court facility. It’s located in an office building downtown that’s been cut up and hacked up and renovated numerous times over. It’s still inadequate, it remains inadequate, and we have to address that at some point in time in an effort to save ourselves money.
The same can be said for the college campus. I think we should own a dedicated college campus here in Yellowknife. Why wouldn’t we? We’re spending millions of dollars on lease costs in an office building that isn’t conducive to a college campus or environment. The lease is coming up. We have to get a plan to get out of there and build a dedicated facility.
I know I’ve talked about the Fire Centre in Fort Smith as well and I’ll mention that again. Again, that’s a highly specialized area. It will cost us a lot of money to lease the facility in Fort Smith. We should be looking at building a facility in Fort Smith dedicated to that fire centre. We really can’t afford not to be building specialized, especially specialized areas of government operation instead of paying exorbitant lease costs for years and years and years. We did it for the office space requirements in Yellowknife and I think we should be taking a look at presenting business cases for a courthouse, for a college campus, for the Fort Smith Fire Centre and things like that. I look forward to that work getting done.
An increased presence in Ottawa. I know many Members have talked about transportation infrastructure with the Transportation Ministers there and just how important federal dollars are going to be for our future transportation infrastructure requirements. We certainly need an increased presence in Ottawa. I’m glad to see that the government has come forward with a federal engagement strategy. It’s a little bit too late, but better late than never. We’ve got to get on with this, because we can’t go it alone when it comes to transportation infrastructure. We’ve got a lot of opportunity out there with the P3 initiative from the seasonal overland route. There are also possibilities there for the Mackenzie Valley Highway. We’ve got to pursue those things at any and every opportunity that we can. We have to find out where that money is and pursue it.
The other thing I did want to get into was the bypass road here in Yellowknife. Again, this will be the last time I mention this. I wanted to thank the government for that fine piece of infrastructure and the role that it played in allowing the City of Yellowknife to partner with the federal government in building that road. Again, it’s partnerships that I think are going to get us someplace when it comes to developing the infrastructure here in the Northwest Territories. The federal dollars might dry up a little bit but we have to be seeking them out at every opportunity.
I think that’s about all I had. I know it’s getting close to two o’clock and you’ll probably recognize the clock here shortly. I want to thank you, gentlemen. I think we are certainly on the right path when it comes to capital planning. Obviously it’s a balancing act, a juggling act, and not everybody is going to get everything they want. We just have to keep trying to do the best that we can.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the Member’s comments, particularly about the process and the decisions that we as the Legislature and the government have made responding to that feedback.
The issue of the concerns about the school facilities of course has been addressed and the Member will be, I’m sure, addressing it with the Minister of Education, along with the issue of the college campus, and with the Minister of Justice with the courthouse.
We’ve had, and will continue to have, the discussion about the increased presence in Ottawa at other tables collectively as we plan how we’re going to do that. As the Member indicated, we are down to about our last seven months, I heard somebody say 332 days or whatever it was, 321 days that we have left until the next election. The sands of time have really been running out on us.
Once again we appreciate his comments about the bypass road. Coming in with the new Legislature, they will hopefully be able to build off the work that we’ve done collectively here.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The last on my list is Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Ministers’ statements, I’m just going to summarize my comments to them on their statements.
Certainly with this legislation, the 16th, we have presently said we’ve spent close to just over $1 billion on infrastructure. That’s quite impressive. Yet when you still look at the infrastructure in the Northwest Territories, that’s still not enough to our assets in our communities. It’s a matter of allocating. Like Mr. Ramsay said, some you win and some you lose and some of the infrastructure that gets placed on the capital plans for discussion for approval.
I’m really interested in terms of the federal stimulus infrastructure dollars that are going to be coming to a halt. It’s almost like feast to famine when you’re looking at the next couple of years for infrastructure in the Northwest Territories. I think our fiscal strategy would have to really kick in and hold policies really tight on how we’re going to go forward in missing our partnership with the federal government on infrastructure investment in the Northwest Territories. In small communities I know that the Government of the Northwest Territories is a major employer in economic opportunities to almost 50 percent of economic employment comes from the Northwest Territories government in capital infrastructure.
The issue of housing is not on the capital books but it’s in our discussion for information. I look forward to having discussion with the Minister on how we go about fulfilling some of the needs that the Minister heard from my riding and other ridings, such as vacant lots and vacant houses and putting these programs to meet the needs of the people of the Northwest Territories. I do want to say that I do look forward to continuing on with the Minister in a new direction for the capital planning budget for fall time. That makes a lot of sense. That deferred maintenance is going to be right up there in priorities.
I want to say that MACA does address funding for community governments and is providing a stable source of funding. I’m not too sure that it’s adequate, because the needs of the communities are so high. We are giving them a lot of money, yet the needs seem to be so huge in terms of which projects they can get in the community. I look forward to some discussion in that area.
One issue I wanted to look at was in terms of infrastructure and capital in our schools in the small communities. I hope the message is out there that because you’re in a small community it means this is the type of quality education you’re going to get automatically, versus what you’re going to get in the larger centres that have a different level of education in their schools. We are trying to work hard on this capital infrastructure budget to get some of those quality education courses into our schools and to bring our students up to par that would be equivalent to larger centres.
Mr. Chair, I wanted to say that overall I’m happy with how this has come about. There are a lot more questions, a lot more that needs to be said to the specific departments. I want to thank the staff and the people who brought this forward to us in this manner here.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Member knows, we, the country and the Northwest Territories are moving out of the stimulus phase and into the restraint phase. Many jurisdictions are struggling with enormous deficits and debts.
I appreciate, once again, the Member’s comments about the new processes and thing that we’ve collectively agreed to. I think he’s answered the question with the community funding when he made the comment that we spend an amazing amount of money -- $1 billion -- but it’s not enough. I think it’s the same if you asked the Health Minister, if we doubled your budget could she spend it all tomorrow, she’d tell you yes and it probably still wouldn’t be enough.
So we are going to have our challenges going forward and I would anticipate you will have a fulsome discussion with the Minister of Education as you talk about the quality of education in small communities. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. I have nobody else on my list. Is committee agreed that we’ve concluded opening comments from the Minister and general remarks from Members?
Agreed.
On behalf of committee, I’d like to thank the Ministers’ witnesses and if the Sergeant-at-Arms could please escort our witnesses out of the Chamber. Recognizing the clock, I will now rise and report progress.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your committee has been considering Tabled Document 66-16(5), NWT Capital Estimates 2011-12, and would like to report progress. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of Committee of the Whole be concurred with. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. A motion is on the floor. Do you have a seconder? The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen,
---Carried
Orders of the day for Monday, October 18, 2010, at 1:30 p.m.:
Prayer
Ministers’ Statements
Members’ Statements
Returns to Oral Questions
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery
Acknowledgements
Oral Questions
Written Questions
Returns to Written Questions
Replies to Opening Address
Petitions
Reports of Standing and Special Committees
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills
Tabling of Documents
Notices of Motion
Notices of Motion for First Reading of Bills
Motions
First Reading of Bills
Bill 12, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act
Second Reading of Bills
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Tabled Document 4-16(5), Executive Summary of the Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project
Tabled Document 30-16(5), 2010 Review of Members’ Compensation and Benefits
Tabled Document 38-16(5), Supplementary Health Benefits - What We Heard
Tabled Document 62-16(5), Northern Voices, Northern Waters: NWT Water Stewardship Strategy
Tabled Document 66-16(5), NWT Capital Estimates 2011-2012
Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act
Bill 8, Social Work Profession Act
Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Tourism Act
Report of Committee of the Whole
Third Reading of Bills
Orders of the Day
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday, October 18, 2010, at 1:30 p.m.
---ADJOURNMENT
The House adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
