Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We are intending to use the facilities, the new building, to help provide heat or to provide heat to the two existing buildings. It is the Stuart Hodgson Building and the Laing Building. We will save 785 tonnes of greenhouse gases annually by the option that we have selected, biomass for the new building.
The Member has mentioned the district heating and any options that we have there. I said it before, I will say it again, we haven’t finalized the plans. We still have a small window where we can switch to, in construction, a district heating. If it was to come forward to us, we have asked the city to provide us with a business plan showing us the economics of this. It is something we are interested in. Unfortunately, we have awarded a contract on this building. We do have to pursue that and continue to move forward. That window is going to close. Does it mean we can’t go back later? Of course it doesn’t, but we would really love to have that information before we move forward, because it would be economies of scale and might be able to save money on construction and design, but that window is closing rapidly.
Thanks for the Minister’s comments there. I have a couple of questions. Does the city know the timing within which they need to respond to the government for the potential to pursue things? What sort of deadline was given to them? The other two buildings are Stuart Hodgson and the Laing. Would they also be part of Yellowknife community energy system according to the folks of the city if they came back with a positive response to government questions?
Yes, they have been notified of our window, and we have encouraged them to please get us a business plan so we can see the economies of what they are proposing. We have no idea when they are going to get that to us, but we do have limited time before we actually have to finalize the heating system.
The other question with respect to the other two buildings, the answer is yes. If the district system heating comes forward and we accepted and we become a partner, we would be able to tie in all of those buildings.
Madam Chair, thanks again to the Minister. The other part of that question was: What date has been given to the city for the deadline for the GNWT to know and make their decision?
We indicated that we need to know as soon as possible, because as we move forward with construction, we are pouring the foundation, we are doing that work. We are getting ready to move into other parts of the construction. Once we finalize the look of the boiler room or the heating room, the utility room, we run out of options. We have to be ready to put in our biomass system or another system. A month or two.
What other energy efficiency measures are being taken with this building? I understand the structure of it; it is a nice block which is a nice sort of energy efficient start, but we know that our electricity rates are soaring, and I am just wondering if there are efficiencies being gained in that area as well as effective use of the heating that we do put into the building. Thank you.
Madam Chair, we have gone with a very efficient layout. The building is going to be energy efficient with an energy efficient envelope. The envelope design is going to exceed by at least 10 percent of the required energy consumption level of the National Energy Code for building as required by the Good Building Practice for Northern Facilities Guidelines. Energy-efficient fixtures and equipment will be incorporated. Daylight harvesting technologies will be incorporated. Energy-efficient fluorescent and/or LED lighting will be included. As I indicated before, we hope to save 785 tonnes of greenhouse gases annually. There will be heat recovery on the ventilation system. Domestic water will be reduced by 30 percent through efficiencies. Those types of things are things we are looking to do. Recycled carpeting, interior partitions manufactured from recycled materials, those types of activities, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, those all sound great. It is good to hear we are putting some intention to that sort of detail.
The other part, I know the Minister is a big supporter of the arts. I am sure he recognizes the opportunity here to support the arts community. Especially in light of the lack of an arts facility other than NACC community structure, what is the Minister putting in place for the display of art from Yellowknife and the NWT? Is there a policy in place to assure 1 percent of the wall space or something is available for display of arts products, activities? Thank you.
Madam Chair, the Member asked a similar question in I think it was business main estimates last year and I committed to having the department go and do an analysis of the space available where we could actually hang pictures or display art, with parameters being it has to be the public area in the buildings rather than, say, office areas or areas that aren’t open to the public.
The department is doing that analysis. We have some early numbers. There is not as much public space as you might imagine, so we are just trying to explore our definition of what is public space.
Once we have that analysis done and we have a sense of the space, we were going to approach some of the different art organizations in the Northwest Territories to have some discussions on what they are thinking. What do they want to have displayed? Where do they want to have it displayed? Who would be responsible for hanging it? What are the insurance requirements in case things get damaged?
Before we go to them, we want to have a sense of how much space we’re talking about. We don’t want to give anybody false hope that there’s a lot of space. Frankly, right now we still don’t have our heads completely around what space would be considered public on our walls in places that we rent and/or own. So we are working on it. It’s going forward.
Thanks again to the Minister. I’m very happy to hear that that analysis is being done. I also asked and pointed out where there were some possible federal resources for putting, say, 1 percent of the space available on the ground floor level so that the public and visiting public can experience northern art. That did not include the sale of art but it did include the performance, some small performance venues and this sort of thing. Has the Minister pursued those opportunities?
We’re not convinced that there’s 1 percent. There might be more, there might be less. We need to really assess the space, the public space.
As far as the performing arts, I don’t recall that and I haven’t directed the department to look at the performing arts side of things. I apologize for that. I would say that it would fall under the same category of art.
Once we talk to the arts associations in the Northwest Territories, I think we’ll get some good input from them, but I’m not prepared to go to them until we have some sense of how much space is available.
Thanks again for the Minister’s response there. I do have other questions but I see I’m running out of time, so rather than get onto my next set of questions, maybe I’ll see if somebody else wants to go next and you can put my name back on the list.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Next I have Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple quick things. The first thing was, we’re backwards on the art proposal for the art policy or allowing art to be displayed in public areas. Will that policy be coming to Members prior to going to the public? In other words, if Public Works comes up with a policy in some form, will they be coming to Members for advice in advance of going out to, let’s say, arts organizations to build up expectations in advance of us reviewing it? I would think that would be very important.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Obviously, we would be going through committee for some discussions around that but we also need to approach the arts community themselves to get a sense of what their expectations might be. Their input into the development of a policy would be valuable as well.
There are a number of different organizations that we could approach just to get ideas, not necessarily to have them draft or work on the draft with us, but we need to get some ideas from them on what they would like to see as performing artists, graphic artists, painters, photographers, any of those individuals. We do need to get some sense from them, but like I said, I’m not really comfortable going to different arts organizations until we have a sense of space, because we would hate to give them some false expectations. We may need to take it to Cabinet and FMB as well. We’d certainly involve committee, absolutely.
I would like the assurances and commitment that the Minister will ensure that I’m copied in some way on this particular initiative as this policy gets developed. The reason being, there are a number of institutions, businesses, that is, that sell art in this community and they would view this as competing directly with them. I would want to make sure that their concerns are being represented. If it is to be on display, as I continue to maintain, I have no issue with art being on display, but the issue is that all of a sudden the assumption that while people are viewing it for potential sale and whatnot, then we’re providing free space to folks to sell their art when we have art galleries or other types of business that are trying to make money at this particular thing. Then we seem like we’re providing a space for free and they’re trying to charge and make money, and it’s a bad position to be in.
I’d like the Minister to commit to me that he will ensure that I get a copy of the policy well before it’s implemented so that I can have some input, as well as speak to the constituents who do have businesses in this area.
The Member shares exactly the same concerns I have with this same process. We still need to get a sense of space. There may not be as much and it may not be appropriate for all purposes. We certainly aren’t a retail outlet for art and we don’t want to be a retail outlet for art. We don’t want to challenge or compete with those outlets that are involved in selling art. It’s about displaying local artists. It shouldn’t be too complicated to figure out, but we will, absolutely, work with our colleagues.
I didn’t hear him say yes, he would ensure that I get copied on this if for some reason I’m out of the loop.
The other thing is the insurance requirement. Just as my opinion, I would think that this would be the artists’ problem. My concern is I wouldn’t want the GNWT to take on some type of liability over a piece of artwork. By way of example, we don’t know how this is going to go and I’m willing to try something new by all means, but I would just be cautious. If someone hangs a painting that’s protected behind a sheet of glass or plexi-glass or whatever the case may be, folks can say, oh, I know that artist, that’s really nice, he sells art. Now we have to go find someone to get it out because they’ve sold it, although they’re not using it. I’m worried about what type of false market we’re creating in the sense of avenue to sell art, as well, so I’m just going to express my cautiousness.
I have a question about the central heating question, but I’d like the Minister to assure me that he will commit that I will be copied on any type of development of this.
Absolutely. The Member is the chair of EDI, which is the committee that we would be going through. He will absolutely, without question, as I indicated before, get the information, as will all Members.
Once again, I share the Member’s concerns with respect to liability. We certainly as a government don’t want to take on additional liability for this purpose. I believe there are individuals who would be interested in this opportunity and I’m sure we can find a reasonable solution with the cooperation of everybody involved.
On another issue, Mr. Bromley has brought this up and actually it’s not so much that I’m concerned on how he brought it up but it’s more about the perception of how it’s brought up. It’s about the city’s potential on the Con Mine heating system or how they want to do a central heating style system in Yellowknife; the city, that is. I often hear people at the city talk about how they’ve got all these partners in some form of some type of commitment, and it’s funny because when I talk to businesses downtown, they’re not interested in this. I don’t know who the city thinks they have on the hook for, we’ll call it a critical mass to move this initiative forward. I can tell you right now that one of their major people that they think they have, they do not have. The next major partner I’d describe is probably the GNWT would be the next, I’ll say, size that should matter.
I guess the question goes to the Minister. In the Minister’s understanding, and certainly in the capacity, is there any letter of intent or similar pieces of paper written to the city about our willingness to commit to this type of project and under what conditions?
In no way have we committed to this project. We have indicated that we are certainly willing to look at all options that save the government money over time, and if they present a business case that is a saving or even comparable to what we are going to be saving through our new building and the energy efficiencies we are putting in that building, including our biomass system in that building, if the price is comparable, we would certainly be interested in talking, but there is zero commitment at this point. There is nothing to the city saying that we’re committed to this project. We haven’t seen a business case. We have no idea what’s being proposed as far as savings are concerned and long-term benefits are.
I just want to make sure – I am a fan of pellet usage, I believe in the future of biomass, and I certainly believe in the science behind geothermal – but I’m just worried that the city is out there flogging this particular project and suggesting they’ve got major people leaning towards any day they’re going to put ink to paper. I’m worried that they think that they’ve got the GNWT more committed than we are and I’m concerned that maybe that is the case. Maybe that isn’t the case. I’m not hearing it is the case from the Minister, which provides some relief, but the fact is I know one of the major business proponents downtown is not completely behind this. I’m trying to figure out who they think they have on the hook for this particular initiative, because I think the citizens of Yellowknife need some honesty on who is on this project. I know this is not the GNWT’s problem, but what I want to make clear here, and crystal clear is, is there any type of commitment other than we’d take a look at it and consider it. You’d be foolish not to look at it and consider it if there was a business case that spoke in favour of proceeding in this direction.
Just maybe one or two more times, and I apologize to the Minister, but that said, just one more time, is there any type of commitment whatsoever that says we’re on board with this project? I just want to make sure because from what I hear bouncing out on the street and what you’ve heard from some of the recently elected and re-elected people about these projects, it kind of makes me worried that we may be onto some type of moral obligation commitment or some written obligation commitment and I just want to make sure that we’re all on the same page.
I’ve heard a lot of individuals stating that certain businesses are committed and then I’ve heard that those businesses aren’t committed. The city has asked us for a commitment and we have not committed in any way, shape, or form to this project.
What we are willing to do, and what we have indicated to them that we’re willing to do, is once a comprehensive business plan is provided which outlines the costs, we will assess it to see if there are savings to the government, what the costs to government would be, and if those costs are reasonable, we would absolutely approach the House for more discussion and debate on this particular topic. Right now we have not seen a business plan and until we see a business plan, there’s nothing to do on this particular file.
I’m happy with that at this particular time.
Thank you. Any further questions from any Members? If not, I will go back to Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Interesting discussion there. I guess my first question to the Minister is: Does he see a role for promotion of the arts by GNWT and do we currently display local artwork in government buildings?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It would purely be my opinion, but as MLA for the Northwest Territories I have constantly and I will always be a supporter of the arts. When the Member asked similar questions about office space before, I agreed to work closely with Education, Culture and Employment and I will continue to work with Education, Culture and Employment and ITI, who have roles in supporting arts in the Northwest Territories. I think the Member’s suggestion that office space might be a reasonable place to support northern artists, I think that’s certainly an interesting idea and that’s why we’re pursuing it. I recognize my other colleague Mr. Hawkins’ concerns. We will take those into consideration. We will work closely with ECE, ITI and artists to find some real solutions if the space is there.
Thanks for the Minister’s remarks. It sounds reasonable to me. I would also urge the Minister to in fact consult with businesses, who I suspect would be wildly enthusiastic for the display of local art in government space, especially public space that might be frequented by the public. I would ask the Minister to make that commitment to also consult with businesses about the display of local art.
We will. Thank you.
My other line of questions has to do with the Capital Asset Retrofit Fund Program, a program which I am wholeheartedly supportive of. Although I’m sure some of my colleagues may have some reason to criticize it. I’m wondering if the Minister could give us, you know, perhaps not right now but in paper form if it hasn’t been provided, the payback times and greenhouse gas savings, and what the anticipated contributions to the fund will be from the projects being proposed from the fund this year.
For this budget the fund is $1.2 million, which is up significantly from last year. These dollars, as I’ve explained in the past, are based on savings that we’ve received from putting different assets and doing different projects. We expect and hope this fund will continue to grow, and the money for this fund is purely from savings.
We do have some breakdowns of some previous year work. The current year work hasn’t been completely finalized, and that will help build the fund for the previous year.
I will commit to getting the Member and committee a breakdown of the types of activities we’ve done under the fund, projected savings and, where possible, real savings that have actually helped build the fund. I will commit to getting that to the Member.
That’s all the questions I had. I just will note that that has been provided for past years and we have that information. When it’s available for this year, this proposed year, that would be appreciated. Thank you.
In that case, we won’t bother re-providing it, but we will get you the current year stuff as soon as we’ve got it completed.
Thank you. Next on the list I have Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions will be under the project listing of deferred maintenance. Before I ask my questions here, I think it’s important that the people listening at home understand the definition of what is deferred maintenance versus regular maintenance, and I would ask the Minister to set the record straight on the definition of both those terms. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. When individual departments defer maintenance, this is when we utilize the Deferred Maintenance Program. By deferring maintenance, I’m referring to the fact where the practice of postponing maintenance activities such as repairs on buildings and infrastructure in order to save costs meet funding levels or realign the available funding. During the lifecycle of a building, usually about halfway through the midlife, there’s a requirement to do some major upgrades and make sure that everything is up to date and running fast, and that the building needs are still meeting the needs of the client, department and the public. In the past, those have been deferred.
This program that we have in place is designed to assess the amount of deferred maintenance requirements in the government infrastructure and address it and find ways to improve that. It was $470 million when it was assessed, I think it was 2008-09 when the program came in, and we’ve got down to about $325 million.
The deferred maintenance that we’re talking about here is the capital side. That’s the $5 million budget, but there’s also an O and M side under the deferred maintenance for smaller activities.
Maintenance, on the other hand, is resulting from sort of just general upkeep of buildings, which might include fluorescent tube repairs, dealing with windows that may be broken, boiler repairs, regular upgrades on boilers. Not really lifecycle, but things that support lifecycle. There are some differences between just general maintenance and then the deferred maintenance plan.
I appreciate the Minister’s forensic review of those terms just so we know what we’re talking about, and I think everyone appreciates knowing the terms.
That said, as the Minister indicated, the deferred maintenance component on the capital side has been in historical past a fairly large and significant number of the budget. I believe that number has come down over the last couple budgets, but is still, as the Minister just indicated, it is a $5 million component.
What is the forecast that the department is looking at in their deferred maintenance budget for the next couple of years? Is this a number that we’re going to see continuously going in more of a decline mode so we’re getting better control of our deferred maintenance costs as we move forward within the life of this Assembly?
Yes. We have seen it come down, and I think that’s indicative of the direction that the deferred maintenance will continue to go. There are a number of ways that items could come off the deferred maintenance list. By way of example, we just completed the construction of a new school in Inuvik, and as a result of that new school being completed, we are able to get rid of and demolish both the Samuel Hearne and the SAMS school. As a result, there is a significant amount of deferred maintenance tied up in those buildings. Once they are no longer there, that deferred maintenance is no longer required, but it stays on the books as long as the asset is live.
There are a number of assets out there that, over time, will come down; some of the different projects we are working on. An example, again, is the school in Deline. It requires a significant amount of work. We have invested a significant amount of work into that building and as we do the work on that building, the deferred maintenance costs will come down.
We have done some things to help us control these particular expenditures in the future. With our new capital planning process that came into place, I believe it was 2008-09, in addition to requiring Class C estimates and having other information, the planning process includes an assessment of maintenance that’s going to be required to keep those buildings up to current standards during the life of the building, including some consideration around when a midlife review or updates are going to be required. We also require, in the new capital planning process, requirements for the departments to do an assessment of their O and M. As a result, Public Works and Services also has to do an assessment of the O and M because they would be responsible for maintenance on those buildings that we build. There are a number of things, as a result of this new capital planning process, that will help us control these costs moving forward so that we don’t end up in a situation where our new buildings are becoming deferred.
I heard the word “deferred” many times, and “midlife”. Sometimes I feel the same way.
I guess the Minister did a great job in terms of setting the stage for my next set of questions. He did indicate that Public Works and Services is bringing this number down. This is a number that should be going in the right direction for taxpayers. I guess my question is: As members of committee here, we should see a decrease in that number over the next couple of budgets, that we will not see the repeat of $5 million on an annual capital assessment for budget purposes. Can we get some reassurances that that number will come down and that $5 million will not be a repeat number for the next couple budgets?
I actually disagree. We will need to maintain that $5 million and possibly increase it in order to get this number to continue to drop. Cost of doing business continues to go up. Cost of some of these retrofits is going to continue to go up. We have a lot of old buildings that didn’t have regular lifecycle upgrades and that’s how we got into this situation to begin with. A lot of those buildings aren’t planned for complete replacement for extended periods of time, if they’re even on the plan at this point, and we still have a requirement to make sure that they’re to code and that they are safe and that they are positive places.
If we were to reduce the fund now, we will actually slow our ability to decrease the total outstanding deferred maintenance, so I don’t expect we will be coming with a reduction to the $5 million anytime soon. We have $325 million outstanding at $5 million a year. That’s a lot of years.
I guess in one sense – and I’ll have to go back and look at the Hansard – we’re doing a better job to get a better handle on our deferred maintenance. Buildings are coming off the queue, so to speak, with new buildings, and that this number was coming down from what I think was said by the Minister. Now we’re hearing that that number is going to stay consistent because the projects are going to be compounded. I guess as a Regular Member I have a hard time understanding both sides of that definition. We’re making improvements and yet that number is going to have to remain the same as an outlook.
I’ll leave it at that. If the Minister wants to comment on what I just said, it is his prerogative, but I don’t understand the math that was just explained here today.
I’ll try and do a better job of explaining the math. Currently, we have an outstanding deferred maintenance requirement of $325 million. As I’ve indicated, there are a number of ways for us to get that down. As buildings that have deferred maintenance are taken down and disposed of, the price drops. The main way that we’re getting rid of some of these costs is the continual investment of $5 million in capital annually, and we’re going to have to keep investing in order to bring down the entire $325 million. It’s going to take a bit of time for us to knock down that $325 million through the $5 million a year investment annually, demolition of buildings that have had replacements put in place, and any other number of activities. But if we were to cancel or stop investing our $5 million a year, the number would just become stagnant and it would never come down. So we need to continue to invest for a period of time. That period of time is not going to be completed within the life of this government. I imagine that investment will need to continue beyond the life of the 17th Assembly.
We are reducing and we will continue to reduce the overall demand of $325 million, but we must invest every year in order to do that.
Mr. Abernethy, do you want repeat that last statement on the record, please? Mr. Abernethy.
Sure, Madam Chair, I just said it doesn’t disappear by itself. It needs investment.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Dolynny.
No further questions, Madam Chair.
