Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Member’s concern. The issue of more demands on our resources is one that we constantly struggle with. The Premier is committed to looking at the 20 year capital plan.
I know the issue, the request the Member is raising in the House, about an expansion of the school there. We also will be pulling together a timeline going back five years and going forward five years so that we can all get a tiered look at how capital has been apportioned out over that period of time. Then we can make informed decisions and adjustments and look at what the requirements are in terms of any improvements coming out of this capital planning process, which we have all agreed we are going to be revamping for the next little while.
Just a comment. You know, we have 33 communities in the Northwest Territories, and from what I see here, four of them are getting everything. It’s not right.
Mr. Chairman, once again I will just make the point that we are going to bring forward a ten year chronology. It’s very difficult to look at one particular point in time and make a long term review and assessment of how capital has been done. We know that the capital planning process needs improvement, which is why the infrastructure committee is at work. We appreciate the Member’s concern and will be working collectively here, as we move into the next business cycle, to look at how we address those issues.
I just want to let the Minister know that’s another four years. I won’t be here in four years; you never know. So, again, it’s not fair. Where’s the fairness?
Just a clarification from the Minister. Is there a possibility for a worksheet that will elaborate on the planning process? Is there a worksheet that may be distributed so that Members can see where they fit on that 10 year or 15 year plan that you are talking about?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That document is just getting updated. We expect to have it, hopefully, by Monday, which we will share. It will give you a retrospective. As well, we have the 20 year capital plan.
If I could just reassure the Member, the capital planning process is going to continue. There is opportunity on an ongoing basis to look at and have input into what’s on the capital plan and how it gets on there. It’s not a closed door for the next three years.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Next on the list I have Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question that I have for the Minister or his staff is that when the communities ask for additional space in these facilities such as Inuvik or even Tulita, the community had to buy into the deposits. The community had to upfront some money in terms of additional spaces that they need, and then the community put the funding to, say in Tulita, the addition of a stage to the gymnasium. Now that the budget has increased significantly for the Tulita school building by just over $20 million, the community is asking why they had to put an extra $400,000 out of community capacity building for the addition of the stage. The budget is already up $6 million more than what was originally budgeted for.
Then they came back, and this is something that they wanted me to ask in terms of this funding here. It seems that the schools…. Because of the prices and the labour and the steel and fuel, these prices are going to be increasing every year. I know Fort Good Hope appreciates this process of checking out the school and getting it constructed and for this school there. They have an option also to allow them to put funding towards the school.
There are other schools in the Territories, Mr. Chairman, in terms of making contributions to infrastructure to these facilities. But it seems these prices are always escalating, and they are saying: why do we have to put in the money here when you’re putting an extra $3 million, $4 million, $5 million into these buildings?
Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The price of the school has gone up for the reason the Member has talked about in terms of escalating costs. But the community indicated they would like an addition. There is an agreement to put in $400,000, which is being honoured. The arrangement will still be honoured. There is no requirement for any additional money from the community; we are just going to absorb whatever costs are there. But there was a significant contribution in cash to help the community achieve its goals, and the government partnered up with them to do that.
Anything outside the basic programs for education is considered basically an extra. As the Member indicated, if there is an interest by communities for bigger gyms or stages or other types of infrastructure not in the original plan, then resources have to be found and agreements have to be made to put those developments into the plan. In this case there was an agreement, and even though the prices have gone up for everything else, the stage will still get built for the money that the community put in, and the government is going to absorb the extra cost. So it’s a real deal.
Mr. Chairman, as the Minister agreed, there was a real deal at the time that the community wanted an additional gym. It couldn’t get it, because they said they didn’t have the money. It wasn’t budgeted for. If you want the stage for the community, you will have to put in an extra $400,000. Thank God the New Deal came in. That was the real deal to give the community: some money.
The community as a whole between the three organizations, the three governments, said: we want to support education for children; the school needs a gymnasium, a proper gymnasium; we will pay for it; we will help with the education. Then the price started to increase in the school in terms of the construction. Now it is over $20 million, and they are saying: why did we have to throw in the $400,000? I know the situation. That’s what they’re saying, and they are not satisfied, saying: we just likely threw away $400,000. I don’t know if it is true or not, Mr. Minister, but that is what the people are saying. It costs more in terms of the infrastructure.
Somebody got the real deal here, and it wasn’t the school in Tulita. They are asking why did they have $400,000 go to the gym, which cost extra money, millions of costs, to build the school? They appreciate it, but you know what the Minister has said: we got a real deal here. I don’t think so. I think somebody else got a real good deal on this school, but I want to say that this is what they are asking. And I want to ask again. I know that we’ll probably have some further discussions.
We are going to have this opportunity also for Fort Good Hope, and the people of Fort Good Hope appreciate it. The school is falling apart, literally falling apart, the same as with Tulita and many other schools in the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Chair, I’ll probably make it more of a common statement. I do not really expect an answer from the Minister. That’s my sense on this, so I would like just to leave it at that. Fort Good Hope is looking forward to their process and looking forward to constructing their school in the hope that they have a good review this fall in terms of the school. But there is something that doesn’t fit really well with people in Tulita. They certainly appreciate the new school. They certainly appreciate coming up with $400,000, because it has put a lot of strain on the community. That’s the way this system works, and that’s the way it happened there. I’m just voicing my concerns from the people in Tulita.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. No real question there, but does Minister Miltenberger want to make a general response?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just suggest to the Member that his constituents should feel very proud that they’ve made such a significant contribution to a school that’s going to educate their children for decades to come. The community the size of Fort Good Hope now has a fine facility, which, he indicated, is over almost $20 million or thereabouts. It’s a significant investment, and it’s a shared investment now with both the community and the government. I think that’s something to be celebrated.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Next on the list is Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is the Minister referring to a 20 year capital plan or a 20 year needs assessment? I’m not sure if I’m talking about the same document here. I’m looking at the 20 year needs assessment, but I’m not sure if that’s the document that’s been updated or if there’s actually a 20 year capital plan. Can I get a clarification on that, please?
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we’re referring to the same document. As well, I was saying, we’re going to lay out looking back ten years at how capital was portioned out across the North, and we’ll provide that information to Members.
Could the Minister advise me if there are any plans for renovation, retrofit or replacement of the schools in Fort Resolution, Deninu Ku’e School or Lutselk’e?
Deferred maintenance for Deninu Ku’e School is one of the things we have on the list for ’09–10.
Could I get a definition of deferred maintenance, please?
I don’t have the specific list of what’s being contemplated for the money that’s identified in the budget, but we could get back to the Member with that specific information.
I know less than the Minister thinks. I actually want a definition of the term “deferred maintenance,” not what they’re going to do with the money.
I hesitated to give a definition for deferred maintenance because I assumed I would be told I was being obtuse, that clearly he wanted the detail of what the money was going to be spent on. I just want to apologize to the Member.
Deferred maintenance is maintenance that should have been completed at a previous time but wasn’t for various reasons, usually fiscal. It has now been identified as needing to be done, which is why we’re spending the millions of dollars we have identified as a Legislature: to try to catch up on that particular backlog.
I’m glad to see there will be some deferred maintenance done on the school at Fort Resolution. How about the school in Lutselk’e?
There doesn’t appear to be anything on the list we have before us right here.
Earlier in some questioning I was told that there was an assessment done on quite a few buildings for the GNWT in order to prepare a plan for deferred maintenance. I was wondering if there was an assessment done of the school in Lutselk’e.
We don’t have that complete list. Once again, I can get the information for the Member of what major buildings were assessed.
We’ll move to the next person on our list. The next person on the list is Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, would like to respond to questions asked by Mr. Yakeleya in regard to the school that was built in Tulita.
When the school was destroyed by fire in Fort McPherson, the community had to put $400,000 into that school in order to get a larger sized gym. They were told that under the building standards for schools, there was only so much square footage based on enrolment and also the size of the classroom and everything else. That included a gymnasium.
Again, the community put $400,000 into that school, and that was in 1998. The school cost $8.5 million. Now we’re talking $20 million for schools. But it seems like there are different standards being used in regard to what is paid for by the Department of Education and what is being paid for by the residents of those particular communities.
I’d like to know exactly: are those standards still being used in regard to the amount that will be paid by the Department of EC&E, and will any add-ons or any additions be paid for by those affected residents in those communities?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is that EC&E has standards for the schools they have under their jurisdiction and that they are available. But I would ask if I could defer the question to Minister Lafferty to reply in more detail.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. As the Minister did indicate, there are standards for the Northwest Territories that we follow to build schools in the communities. There have been some initiatives from certain communities: Tulita, Gametì and, I believe, Fort McPherson, as the Member alluded to.
Those areas that are extra, beyond the school space or school activities, the Minister already indicated that is beyond the school standards. That is where we are with that. There are regular standards that we follow. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like, if it is possible, to get copies of that just to see exactly what those standards are so that when we talk about particular types of schools and costs associated with building schools, we know exactly what is being paid for and what is an add-on.
On another point, in regard to the Moose Kerr School in Aklavik, there was an addition added on to it, but there is the older part which was just a replacement of the roof. In regard to Mr. Beaulieu’s comments about going into the band office in Lutselk’e and having to walk over buckets of water, that was the same scenario that was played out in the Moose Kerr School. Going to the principal’s office, there are buckets of water there; going to the washroom, there are buckets there.
It is that type of aging infrastructure we’re dealing with in our communities. Sure, you can fix the roof, but what about the effects that it had in regard to the electrical, the effects of water that got into the walls? Once you have the condition of the building deteriorating to a point where you have a leaky roof, that brings other imperceptible effects with it. There are additional costs associated with it. It’s the same thing with pilings in a lot of these facilities.
I know that there is, on your capital items list, no real list of capital community infrastructure. I’m on some projects where we have worked up to a certain amount, $5,000 or whatnot. Is there a specific list of those types of projects, such as electrical codes, safety codes, implementing national standards, that have to be done, especially with the aging infrastructure we have? No, we can’t replace everything overnight, but we have to ensure we deal with the upkeep of those facilities.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’d be happy to provide the ’09–10 list of identified maintenance for communities, all the communities, to the committee again.
Another school in my riding, since we are dealing with Education, Culture and Employment, is the Paul Niditchie School in Tsiigehtchic. It has a joint community hall/small gymnasium, which is attached to the school and used for both purposes: as a community hall and by the school for recreation. It is having some major piling problems that just came to light the last time we were there for a meeting a couple of weeks back.
That building was going to be condemned before we even had our public meeting there that day. I’m just wondering exactly what we are doing to ensure inspections to ensure that we have safe facilities for our students to go to school in and the public to use as community halls or community recreation activities.
I think, again, the government’s so called number one priority is public safety. We’re being told to have pride in our community. Well, we may not have to meet in that facility because it’s been classified as unsafe since the pilings under it have deteriorated and they just found out about it.
So how often are these inspections — assessments and evaluations — done to ensure the protection of people and the students in those schools is priority number one?
Mr. Chair, I’d ask if I could defer that question to Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Aumond.
The Member is correct. There is an issue with that foundation around the Tsiigehtchic community hall/gym for the school. We had inspected that foundation under our wood pile repair program this summer, determined that there was significant rot in the foundation and did have to shut down the building for a short while. But we have blocked the foundation. It is now safe and open, I believe. The plan will be to remediate and fix that foundation in the upcoming summer or two.
I’d like to know exactly — looking at the five year, ten year, 15 year capital plans — where there are going to be major improvements on the existing schools. I’ll use my riding, for instance, in regard to either replacement upgrades or total replacement. I know the Moose Kerr School is scheduled for 2014–15, but I probably won’t be here.
I think it’s important that the community is aware that you can cope only so long. I think there is a point when communities want to know they are not going to be delayed, delayed, delayed to a point where they have to condemn schools or shut schools down because of specific electrical code violations — things that should basically not get to that point where we have to deal with this major infrastructure, especially schools in our communities.
The reason we have instituted the deferred maintenance program is to try to address some of the backlog of the maintenance issues. We have also done assessments of a significant number of major facilities that we own. I think the offer has already been made to share with committee. The Premier as well has indicated that he is prepared to sit down and look at all that new information with the current 20 year needs assessment. Plus we’ll — just so we have a more comprehensive view — provide the ten year retrospective as well. As we move through the capital planning process, as it moves forward from this particular forum on to the next year, we’ll have all that information before us.
Last question, Mr. Chair. One of the issues that always comes up is the whole environmental condition of our schools. Especially with old schools, such as the Moose Kerr School, we have a lot of products used that are no longer classified by way of lead paint, different types of insulation.
I know this issue has come up with what has happened to SAM school in Inuvik and other schools because of environmental contamination by air circulating systems. Again it comes down to a question of not only the safety of the children but also the safety of the teachers who work in this facility and ensuring the safety and health of the people in those facilities, that they’re working in a healthy and safe environment. I’d like to ask: how often do we do assessments of quality of air in the schools throughout the Northwest Territories?
At this point we do them on an as required basis or where it’s anticipated there may be a problem so that we can clarify whether there is or not.
I know from personal experience that we have had public safety officers with the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission called in by either the teachers or the principals where we had a backup of the sewer system. You had, basically, a puncture of a ceiling; they see something seeping out of the walls.
In order to get attention to this problem, it seems like it has to go public, and I don’t think that should be the case. If we as the government are responsible for the quality and the safety of our residents, and more importantly the children in our schools, this should be an assessment process that’s always paramount to ensure the health and well-being of our students and our teachers in the work environment they go to five days a week over seven or eight months of the year.
It’s something I’ve for a fact had to deal with in schools in my riding because of the things I mentioned — backup of a sewer system, where basically you have a punctured or frozen line or something, and it starts leaking out of mechanical equipment in the mechanic room. These things are crucial. They could shut down our infrastructure. We must do whatever we can to find ways to make sure the schools are constructed with safe building materials and, if not, those materials are removed or remediated so we do have healthy schools for our students to go to.
I appreciate the Member’s concern. If there are events that trigger a concern, like a sewer backup or those types of things, and there are questions about quality of air, clearly there are ways we can deal with that with Public Health or Environment.
In terms of these building standards we do our repairs as we bring things up to code. New construction must meet the building code. We have our northern building standards, as well, to try to make them as energy efficient as possible, as the deputy indicated here yesterday when talking about some of the quality of the energy ratings in some of our new buildings.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Next on my list is Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to add a few comments to the discussion. I’ve got a few questions as well.
Like many other Members, I’m supportive of the Inuvik school replacement. I have been for a number of years now, since the roof collapsed in 2004, and there’s a need there to replace that piece of infrastructure.
The interesting thing for me, though, is that if it was in the private sector and they needed to replace a piece of infrastructure like this — it’s a big building — it’d be done in the most timely, cost efficient, effective manner possible. What I’m seeing with this project is that if you follow the timeline back a ways, it’s had so many people involved in it, so many design changes, and time equals money, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s cost the government a tremendous amount of dollars even to get to the stage where we’re looking at a negotiation with a contractor to get the school built.
I guess the first question I would have is: why is it taking so long, an inordinate amount of time? If the agreement letter was out in July — it’s almost the middle of October — when are we going to have a deal signed so we can proceed with construction of the Inuvik school’s replacement?
