At this time I would like to ask the Speaker if he would like to bring in his witnesses.
Yes, I would, Mr. Chair.
Is the committee agreed that he brings in his witnesses?
Agreed.
Sergeant-at-Arms, will you escort the witnesses in.
Mr. Speaker, for the record could you introduce your witnesses, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With me on my left is the director of corporate services, Olin Lovely, and to my right is the Clerk of the Assembly, Tim Mercer.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Welcome, witnesses.
Turn your attention to page 1-4 in regard to Capital Estimates 2009–2010, Office of the Clerk, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $130,000. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I had inquired previously, working in this building it’s hard not to notice the deteriorating condition, really, of the circle drive here and the walkways. I know there’s been a lot of money invested in those areas over the years, but it seems like they are forever sinking away. I was just wondering if it’s not to the point where some kind of almost emergency or immediate action is required to prevent the asphalt from getting worse. I’m curious about any future planned allocations in the Capital Budget for addressing the driveways and parking areas for the Legislative Assembly Building.
Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The condition of the road out there is certainly one that is in dire need of attention and one that I’ve been really interested in trying to get something done with. As the Member has indicated, it is almost at the emergency stage. We have been trying to do something with that road. We have a mere $75,000 to try and do some upkeep or patchwork on the road in the parking lot.
We have put in a submission for a capital project to do the entire road out there. Our project was not accepted. Some other projects with higher priority were accepted. It was turned down at the authorities level. We have, since then, instructions from the Board of Management to really take this project seriously and to say that it has to be done. We are coming forward with a submission to do the complete drive out there in the ’09–10 or ’10–11 budget year as a capital project.
Is there an overall plan not just to repair what is there now, perhaps, but to look at additional parking out there as well? Now, I know a while back we put contractor parking in over here and so on, but it’s still disappointing to me in some ways that if we ever do have an event here…. We try to encourage the public to participate in activities that go on in this building. It is the people’s building, and it is always disappointing to me that the parking around this building becomes such an issue when there’s any event.
Now, I know there was an intention to try to preserve the integrity of the natural surroundings out here, the muskeg out front, but I’m wondering if as part of this overall plan for repairing the roads, there was any plan to add additional parking so we could have visitors to the Legislative Assembly without fear of them having their vehicles towed, because there’s no place for them to park.
Yes, that is also part of the proposal that we’re going forward with. Along with the road reconstruction there are going to be an additional 21 parking stalls put on the north side of the road over here, and that’s all part of the same project. We have been working on that, looking at it for a number of years. There was at one point in the capital site talk about putting a courthouse in, and we were going to redesign our parking lot out there with some additional parking stalls. That hasn’t materialized, so we will now be going forward with 21 additional parking stalls when we do the road reconstruction.
I just want to say that I know there are a lot of pressures on our capital budget and there are priorities. I don’t want to make it sound like we’re thinking that the needs of the Legislative Assembly are greater than other people’s, but literally, there is such a dip in that driveway out there that I scold my daughter when she’s picking me up, because she bottoms out our little car there in that hole. It scares me. It scrapes right on the bottom.
When the Speaker refers to this proposal being turned down at the authority level, just to be clear, is he talking about a committee of deputy ministers?
The officials level. That project went through with all the capital projects and was prioritized and didn’t make the list, because other ones took higher priority. So I guess that could be said. Now we have looked at a different approach to it, where we will be coming forward with money. It will be done at the Legislative Assembly. We’ll be putting forward a report, and it will not be reviewed by this committee. We’ll be going forward with that project in 2010–2011.
An interesting thing that she brings up is that dip out there. It’s one that we’ve had some engineers look at to see the best way we could work with that to try to improve the situation. As long as we want to maintain that natural habitat out there, I guess it’s’ going to be a problem to try to get a road in there that stays. I think that with the permafrost and everything in there, it’s bog, so there are different opinions as to what we could do to make that road more stable. As long as we leave that area out there the way it is, I suspect we will continue to have problems. Certainly, we’ll have to make it so that it stays driveable until we get the total reconstruction done. We’ve had a number of engineers look at it to see what the best way to do it is.
I know when I chaired the Cultural Enhancement Commission, there were members of the commission who wanted to see everything around the Legislative Assembly cleared, brushed, but I guess it was the intent of the architect who designed this building at the time to keep as much area surrounding the Legislative Assembly as natural as possible. Might I suggest that with the lake out back and everything else, it has been left very natural.
I personally would not have any problem with looking at some fill for that area out front there. We have a large piece of land here, and a large portion of it is natural. In the interest of us mortals, humans here, that have to come to work and find a place to park and for the interest of the people who want to use the Legislative Assembly, I think we should cover up. If we have to fill the bog out front, I personally don’t have an issue with it.
I guess that is an issue we could look at. I know there is a capital site committee that looks at what happens out here that we would certainly have to consult with. We would also have to consult with all the Members before we would make that drastic a change out there. But I think that is one area that could possibly be looked at. We just have to take the money to drain that area and fill it in properly and whatever we do out there. We certainly wouldn’t do it without full consultation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Next on the list I have Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate my colleague’s comments and questions. I generally walk, and I hear it’s good for the heart and good for mental exercise and all that sort of stuff.
But I really want to raise the question of greening of the Legislative Assembly Building. I think we’re all very conversant now on climate change and what that means to the people of the North. I think we’re showing a progressive response and getting innovative in how we deal with these sorts of things. I also think it’s very important to us to do that and to show that we’re doing that as leaders. Nothing would be more appropriate than to really green up the Legislative Assembly Building as much as we possibly can.
I know that much is being done on that front, but I raised last year the possibility of getting a pellet boiler in to replace our fossil fuel heating of this building, which is a substantial sized building, and I don’t see it here. I’m wondering if it’s in the plan and where we’re at on that. So maybe I could start with that question.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That certainly is an area that we’re conscious of all the time. We have been taking some steps to try to deal with the environment and the whole issue of greenhouse gassing and the amount of energy that we use in this building, from lighting to the amount of electrical equipment that’s left on for long periods of time when it’s not being used. We’ve tried to make some improvements in there, and we’re always open to suggestions.
As far as a pellet boiler is concerned, it’s not on the books right now. We are doing some experimenting and are investigating the possibility of using some solar tubing to heat water for the building to create energy savings. The building is not a totally friendly building to convert to a different type of heating system right now because of the way the furnace is set up in here and the crawl space. We anticipate that if we were to put a wood pellet boiler in here, it would have to be in a separate building from the Legislative Assembly and then have some piping work to connect the systems together.
We have some very high priority areas, like the road that we were just talking about. Right now what we’re anticipating is that the road is going to be our priority area and then the possibility of looking at wood pellets and how to tie the building into that type of a system, probably after the ’09–10 or ’10–11 year.
That’s good news. I can’t help but observe that we’re dealing with the symptoms first here rather than the cause. I think it’s always important to consider that climate change is the cause of many of these things that are draining our capital dollars away, so the more we get on with the mitigation side around the world…. I know we’re working to play our part here.
I also appreciate the water heating idea; I think that’s very good. Obviously, this building does present challenges, and that’s part of what I’m happy to hear we’re grappling with, because that’s a real situation that many of our communities and residents and industries are dealing with too. A lot of this stuff on existing infrastructure is difficult to do and presents challenges that require a real grappling to come to terms with in figuring out an innovative way of dealing with it.
I’m looking forward to seeing it on the books and appreciate the work that’s being done on that area. Again, I think it behoves us as leaders to really play that role for our people.
We will continue to look at the possibility of doing that. We have had a private firm come forward with a proposal to do with pellet conversion. We have shown some interest in that, but we haven’t heard back from them yet as to what they see as the possibilities of doing work here with the building. We will continue to look at ways that we can possibly make some improvements in that area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Office of the Clerk, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $130,000.
Legislative Assembly, Office of the Clerk, Activity Summary, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $130,000, approved.
Moving to page 1-2, Department Summary, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $130,000.
Legislative Assembly, Department Summary, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $130,000, approved.
With that, I’d like to thank the Speaker and the witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the witnesses out.
We’ll move to Education, Culture and Employment, page 7-2. At this time I’d like to ask the Minister if he will be bringing in witnesses.
Yes, I will, Mr. Chair.
Do you agree that the Minister bring in his witnesses?
Agreed.
Sergeant-at-Arms, could you escort the witnesses in.
For the record, Mr. Minister, could you introduce your witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, I have with me Ms. Margaret Melhorn, deputy minister of Finance; Mr. Michael Aumond, deputy minister of Public Works and Services; and Mr. Russell Neudorf, deputy minister of Transportation.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Welcome, witnesses.
As I stated, we are now on the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, page 7-2, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $76.889 million.
Interjection.
Oh, sorry. Can we move to page 7-4, Advanced Education and Careers, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $2.095 million.
Agreed.
Department of Education, Culture and Employment, Activity Summary, Advanced Education and Careers, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $2.095 million, approved.
Moving on to page 7-7, Education and Culture, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $74.794 million. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make a brief comment on the K’alemi Dene School project, which is scheduled for completion this year.
I was down at an event at that school on Friday with the Minister of ITI and can certainly testify that the current school is brimming over with young little people. So it will be very good to see this project completed this year. I’m just wondering if there is a schedule for when K’alemi Dene School will be completed and ready for occupancy.
Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It will be ready for occupancy in September 2009.
Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That’s all.
Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions with regard to the projects that are on page 7-8, but I believe they apply to the numbers we’re talking about.
In the capital plan for 2008–2009 there was a project listed for the Sissons School. I don’t see that in the capital plan for ’09–10. I wonder if I could get an explanation from the Minister as to why it is no longer part of the capital plan as we go forward and if and when it will eventually reappear.
The Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s on the schedule to reappear in 2011–12, and go forward for a project size of $15.691 million.
Can I get an explanation as to why this project has been delayed? I don’t remember what year it was scheduled for previously, but I believe it has been put back several years.
Mr. Chairman, we had to make some choices in terms of adjusting the capital plan to deal with more projects than we can get built and the need to deal with the fiscal arrangements, so we made the decision, as we did with Stanton. We had to make some choices: projects that were ready to go or projects that could be deferred and still allow us to carry on with the other priorities of capital projects.
Okay. I presume it was another school that was leapfrogged ahead of Sissons’ renos. But can the Minister advise why Sissons is in such good shape and can be left for two or three years and what project it was that got moved up?
Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sissons is on the plan, as the Minister stated. In going through and trying to, I guess, reconcile how many projects and what those costs were on the books versus the money we had available, some decisions had to be made. We went with those projects that were, I guess, primarily life safety projects as opposed to those that are not in that position right now. Sissons School is still in relatively decent shape. There are no real impending life safety issues with that school. The decision was made, therefore, that it could be moved without putting the program or the people who occupy that building in jeopardy.
