The Minister of Finance.
Mr. Chairman, I would defer to the Minister of Education, Mr. Lafferty.
The Minister of Education, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. That particular school with the proposed addition equals…. There’s been a discussion from my department with the federal government, with Canadian Heritage, on the second phase. As you know, there’s been a federal election, so we’re going to continue on with our discussions with the appropriate department within Canadian Heritage. There’s a partnership agreement that needs to take place with this particular school, because there have been agreements in place for the first phase. We’re currently waiting on the federal government to come into play, and then we’ll certainly make our move to expedite this process with the federal government. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Ms. Bisaro.
That’s good. Thank you.
Next on the list I have Mr. Bromley, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to follow up on the Thomas Simpson and Bompas Elementary schools in Fort Simpson. I know there were discussions about a pellet boiler being considered for replacement there. Has a decision been made yet on that project?
Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. A decision has not been made for a solution yet. We did go out to tender earlier this year, and the price that came in to replace those boilers was nowhere near the amount of money we had available. We are relooking at an option, solutions. Biomass is an option we are considering, but we’re not quite in the position yet to make a determination of what might be the best course of action.
Did the original call for proposals include the potential for biomass, or was it more conventional? Was there a stipulation there?
The Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll defer that technical question to Mr. Aumond.
Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The thinking on our part was to replace the steam boilers in the steam plant at Fort Simpson with hydronic heat. It would have been diesel fired and did not include a wood pellet boiler.
Mr. Bromley.
That’s good for now.
Thank you. Next on the list I have Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve been asking questions about the Diamond Jenness Secondary School renovation. I’ve been told that it was pushed back because they’re doing a program review to ensure they have the right configuration and enough space and so on, probably to address numerous issues.
One of the programs in the school that there’s been a lot of uptake on and a lot of interest in has been the pre-trades shop area. A while back there was a committee formed in Hay River to look at developing some kind of a trade training centre for Hay River.
My question is: can I get a bit more detail on the consultation that’s taking place, and would the program review that’s being undertaken include additional program areas? Is it only looking at the activity that’s already taking place in the school and renovating the school to accommodate that, or could it be looking at additional programming?
Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll refer that program question to the Minister of Education.
Minister of Education, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Certainly, there’s been a consultant who’s been hired to conduct the program review of the Diamond Jenness school towards the retrofit. He’s been there already, and he’s supposed to develop the package by the end of this month, October. Then from there we have to work with PWS to move forward on the planning process. It does cover the program and the current activity and also the future plans for the new school. Mahsi.
Thank you. Just to remind Members, we’re on page 7-7. Mrs. Groenewegen.
My questions weren’t on that page. What page are we on?
Interjection.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. There’s been a precedent set in some communities that when a facility like a school is being built, where there is community interest, additional things can be added into that. I’d be interested in seeing what the terms of reference were for the consultant that was hired to do the program review and if I could get a copy of that.
Also, I’d like to know if any other — since we’re delayed anyway — community groups would have been consulted. I mentioned a trades centre. There may be also some interest in a daycare centre being built in the school; that was something that was considered at one time. We’re looking for creative ways to ensure that students stay in school and that if they’re not interested in the academic stream, they may be interested in the trades. Or if we are talking about young women who have children and have dropped out of school and want to come back….
I’d like to know if the scope of the consultation, as undertaken by the consultants Mr. Lafferty has referred to, would include talking to any other community groups outside of the existing program and people who are working in the school, I guess. Has there been any provision made for that?
Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll refer that program question to the Minister of Education, Mr. Lafferty, with your agreement.
Minister of Education, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Certainly, that consultation had covered those people who are working within the school. The Member asked for the terms of reference. I can share what I can share from my department on moving forward with the consultant. My understanding is that those individuals or groups that are within the school have been consulted, but I will double-check with my department if that’s an avenue the consultant initiated. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Just a clarification on how soon we expect to provide that information on the program review.
Mr. Chair, the program review should be available within the next two weeks, the end of this month.
Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was actually interested in the terms of reference of the program review. I would like to know — and as I have indicated, there have been add-ons to government infrastructure — if there is funding available through other sources or through community resources to incorporate other activities — maybe not specifically into high school education — into buildings that are being built. Like I said, since we’re delayed now, anyway, on this capital project…. Not to muddy the waters, but I think it would be good to put out some kind of a call for anybody who may have input in the community, who may be interested, for example, in the trades area or the child care area.
Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again I’d ask if we could refer that question to Minister Lafferty.
Minister of Education, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. That will be taken into consideration. They’re consulting with various groups within the school. I’ll make the effort to dig up some more information in that area and share it with the Member. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d appreciate that.
Thank you. Next on the list I have Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to preface my comments by saying that I absolutely one hundred per cent support replacing the schools in Inuvik. Now, having said that, I’m not quite sure I understand the cost, to be quite honest.
Based on last year’s capital infrastructure plan, we’ve got a new school that we’re putting into Fort Good Hope. It’s going to be $24 million, and we just finished one in Tulita that was $22 million. Last year in the capitals the budget for the Samuel Hearne and Sir Alexander Mackenzie replacements were $79 million. Based on what I was listening to last week when we were doing the general comments, it’s over $100 million. I believe someone mentioned $116 million.
It seems a little excessive to me. I mean, I know with that school we’ve gone from a design where it was like a half-moon, which is a little crazy and would have driven the cost up…. I understand now we’re talking about a combined school, which is, I think, fantastic. I think that should help us reduce costs, so why do more? I’m a little surprised by the cost. I’m not saying let’s not build it, but I’m really kind of confused by the costs, and I would like to know how we got there. I would like to know how a school that’s so expensive…. What are we building? Is this like the Taj Mahal of the Northwest Territories? What are we building? What’s wrong?
You know, some people say: whatever; why don’t we build a box? Boxes are cheap. We can build a box. We can put state of the art equipment into it, and it will be functional. It may not be the most beautiful building you’ll see, but it will be totally functional, and then there’s all that extra money we could put into programming. I mean, ultimately the programming is as important as the school, and by building something this expensive, they will never be able to match the O&M for this thing. I’m a little worried; I’m a little stunned. I’m not sure how we got to this price tag.
I was wondering if the Minister could help me understand how a school is going to cost us $116 million, $117 million — I don’t even know the price — well over $109 million to build a school.
Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will defer that question to Mr. Aumond.
Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we first started to look at the concept of the combined schools project in Inuvik back in late 2005, we came up with an estimate based upon what the cost of construction was at that time. As we worked our way through the process, not only was the construction market really starting to escalate at that time, but the reliability of any estimates — whether it would be by the GNWT or if we talked to people in the construction association trying to estimate something three or four years out — for construction was and is very difficult in this market.
If Members also recall, we are changing our new capital planning process now for new projects. They have to go to the class C estimate stage before we will consider them into the capital plan so that we have an understanding about what the scope of work is and what it is going to cost, what the areas are of the different rooms, to get a really good idea about what it is we are building and how much it’s going to cost.
That’s really where we are now with the Inuvik schools when we came up with the price that we have today. When you saw the plan last year with the budget that you mentioned, it was based more or less on last year, what work we had done at that time. Over the last year we have advanced the project to where it is at. Then when we got the first schematic design, the construction estimate was well in excess of a hundred million dollars. We rejected that design and directed the architect to go back and take a much more simple approach. We were also able to bring in a prospective contractor to get the contractor’s advice about how to make it simpler to build, make it cheaper to build. The fact of the matter is that the school project itself is roughly 11,900 metres, and the areas of the schools that you had mentioned are anywhere from 2,700 square metres to 3,200 square metres. So the ratio proportion between those schools that are coming in at $20 million to $30 million for 3,200 square metres, versus 11,900…. The pricing is right in the ballpark of what we paid for those schools.
It is just that the size of the school is for 1,050 students, where the other schools are probably in the neighbourhood of around 120 to 130 students, or 200 students maybe. So it is a larger building; there is no question about that. But I think we have done our level best to try and get this down to a simple building. There are no fancy curves or multislope roofs that you may have seen in other facilities. It is a fairly simple, straightforward building compared to what we originally had to deal with. I could go on for longer, I suppose, but I think that is the summary of where we were and where we are now and how we got the cost where we are at today.
Thank you for that information. Looking in the Inuvik Drum today, it still strikes me looking kind of like a half moon. I get what you’re saying, and I understand the importance of this building. Like I said before, I am going to support it. It comes back to some things I heard earlier this session about our capital getting out of hand from time to time. Maybe it’s time that we walked away from pretty buildings. Maybe it’s time that we started talking about buildings that are based on form and function and reducing our costs.
Like I said, boxes are cheaper to build. You know, I don’t want to knock the beauty of the proposal for this school you’re building in Inuvik, but a box would have been cheaper, and we would have been able to fit the same number of classes. We probably would have found convenient ways to heat it, and we would have had a good school with the classrooms required to educate the children of the North. It didn’t need to be most beautiful thing on Earth.
For future reference — I am going to throw it out there — we’re going to keep building schools in the Northwest Territories. We’re still going to need hospitals. We’re still going to need community health centres. There are a lot of things we are going to be building over the years, and I would like to see us get a little bit away from “let’s build something incredibly beautiful” to “let’s build something that is practical, makes sense and will last in the northern economy based on the realities that we are facing,” which includes things like global warming and the price of oil. If we keep trying to build these grand, beautiful buildings, we are going to cause a lot of damage to ourselves and to our bank account in very short order.
So no real question there, but I am throwing it out there, because we need to seriously think about it, and we need to make sure that what we are building is practical and is the right building to build. It doesn’t need to be the most beautiful.
I do have one question. A lot of these estimates, I understand, were based on market information for the last year or so when oil was quite bit a higher. Oil has dropped, so does that mean we will see any sort of savings in the construction of this if the oil price stays down where it is now for a portion of the construction year?
Minister of Finance.
Thank Mr. Chairman. Just quickly in response to the Member’s suggestion, the subcommittee on infrastructure that is looking at the capital planning process is in fact considering those very things that the Member has raised. There has been work underway that is being done, which is why we are, in fact, in this Legislature at this point in time doing capital early. Standardized designs and the bundling of contracts are some other things that are very evident to us as opportunities that the Member has pointed out, not only for schools but for houses and health centres. We appreciate the concern about costs as we sit here as a Legislature year after year.
In terms of the potential savings, if the cost of oil stays down for any significant length of time, combined with other factors — if there is tightening up or a chilling effect in terms of construction projects and things that aren’t going to get built and there are some more interesting projects and steel and things are more available — those could all be potentially things that we can benefit from. At this point things are so fluid it will be too early to say.
We’re on page 7-7, Education, Culture and Employment, Activity Summary, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $74 million. Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sitting here, looking at the list that we have of the infrastructure acquisitions for ’09–10 and ’11–12, I do not see…. Basically, pretty bleak for the communities. We are not getting anything — again. I said it last week and put it in a Member’s statement. There are people having to share a bathroom at the Mangilaluk School, teachers. I see them eating lunches in the hallways. But then, you know, we can go and build a $110 million school, quoting it out of the newspaper today, and communities are being left out.
I mean, we are here. No fairness, again. I said it last week and I’m going to say it again: there’s no fairness. I know it has been in the books for years, and I do support the school in Inuvik. It’s a beautiful building, but what about the outlying communities? We’re having to send our kids to Inuvik for education, because the quality of the school in the communities is not adequate. They are having to do grade 12 again. This government has got to get their minds wrapped around it, letting the fairness show in regard to small communities. You know, I sit down here, same thing again: nothing. I can’t mention numbers, but a lot of these communities are hurting. The people of the Northwest Territories as a whole are not being treated fairly.
