Thank you. Further questions on page 5-4, Mr. Bromley.
Very briefly just to follow up to, again, that interesting series of questions and discussion. If I could ask the Minister to commit to providing committee with the anticipated savings over the next three years in deferred maintenance and that result from buildings planned to be torn down. Also, an estimate of the rate of increase of deferred maintenance on an annual basis so that we can actually try and grapple with the question that Mr. Dolynny raised. That would be useful. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not sure about all of the specifics of that question, but we can certainly provide a breakdown of where we are now, the items that need to be dealt with sooner than later. Once they’re dealt with, obviously, bad aspects of the deferred maintenance come off the list. So we can do a bit of an analysis.
What might actually be useful here is if I offer the committee a briefing on deferred maintenance and that we can all get on the same page. I’m happy to come before committee, whether it’s P and P, Economic Development and Infrastructure, whichever committee would be most appropriate to give a comprehensive briefing and a discussion on deferred maintenance if the committee would like that.
We have had briefings in the 16th Assembly. I’ll leave it up to committee to get back to the Minister on that offer.
But specifically, I think it would be useful to know, for example, knowing what buildings we anticipate being brought down over the next three fiscal years, we know what their deferred maintenance is and the contribution to the sum of deferred maintenance costs. So it would be useful to know that as specific examples. Also some general estimates on the rate of increase of deferred maintenance on an annual basis, and that could be general. I’m not really asking about specific projects as much as just some numbers which help us understand this. The crux of the matter before us is allowing us the information on which to, you know, critique or assess or support our deferred maintenance budget from year to year. Thank you.
We’re happy to give that. Some of it will obviously be forecasted. I mean, the true impact is sometimes not known until the building is gone or the construction activity is done, and we don’t include it in our numbers for actual reduction until those items have happened. But we can do some forecasting. We can clearly identify some of the buildings that we know today will likely be coming down during the life of this Assembly, two schools in Inuvik being examples. So we’ll take a stab at that and we’ll try and get the information, and we’ll have an opportunity to discuss that with committee, and if they need more, we’re happy to try and get that too.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Next I have Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a question for the Minister relative to the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, and I appreciate that this is an asset that is not one that belongs to Public Works. It does belong to Education, Culture and Employment, but it’s my understanding that PWS is undertaking the repairs to the kitchen at the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, or the cafe there.
I guess I would like to know from the Minister where this project is at. It’s been a very long time since the fire and the kitchen was destroyed. I would have thought that we would have been able to replace the cafe kitchen by now. So if I could get an update as to where that project is at, it would be very helpful. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Abernethy.
Thanks, Madam Chair. There were some delays. There were some issues around design and whatnot and some budget issues as well. I believe for certain aspects of it, in particular the chimney systems, a contract has been awarded. The kitchen is out for tender right now, but with the chimney we were notified, I believe it was last week, about some issues that they’re having with the chimneys that I shared with Members. Those issues have been dealt with and they should be proceeding with the chimney and moving to the kitchen once the RFP is concluded. Just as a note, the work is scheduled to be completed this fiscal year.
That was my next question, was when we might expect to see it reopened. So if it’s going to be finished within this fiscal year, I’m hoping April 1st I’ll be able to be over there and have lunch. Thank you.
I like to go for lunch.
I’m not sure that was an invitation, but okay. Any further questions on this page? Okay. Public Works and Services, activity summary, asset management, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $19.2 million. Agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you. Moving on to page 5-7, Public Works and Services, activity summary, Technology Service Centre, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $1.560 million. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Within this section of infrastructure upgrades on 5.8, we talked about the term evergreening. So again, for the sake of getting proper definition to the next series of questions, if the Minister could provide the proper definition for the term “evergreening”.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Abernethy.
Thanks, Madam Chair. All equipment, all of the computer equipment and technology that the users, the staff in the GNWT use, has a lifecycle as determined by the CIO’s office and it is replaced on that lifecycle. That lifecycle is basically what evergreening is. When a piece of equipment hits the end of its lifecycle, it is replaced.
CIO meaning Chief Information Officer. I guess the question many would have is as we’re replacing this equipment, which is basically a natural attrition and prudent business practice, the old equipment, equipment that in terms of lifecycle it might have some use yet. What does the department do with the remaining equipment?
Some of it is recycled, they auction some off, but for the actual specific details I’ll go to the deputy on what we do with the specific items.
Again, I heard the word “auction off,” but I’m thinking on a bigger picture that we have a number of NGOs out there that obviously are in need of equipment, they’re on very limited budgets for the most part and what is deemed near the end of our lifecycle for a government may be very appropriate for a lot of our NGOs throughout the Northwest Territories.
I believe a lot of these NGOs are not even aware that they could have some of these assets available to them. Does the Minister or department do any type of outreach programs informing NGOs throughout the Northwest Territories, especially our smallest communities, that they could have access to reasonably good, refurbished, if need be, equipment so that they can do their job better? Thank you.
I will ask that the chair go to Deputy Minister Guy, who has actually some specifics that address the questions Mr. Dolynny has just asked. We do those types of things and auction wasn’t really the right term. We have stuff in our warehouse that’s available to be acquired once it’s gone through any other means of disposal. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Guy, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There are two parts to that question. When you look at our data centre equipment – the hardware, the servers, the switches, all the things we use in the data centre – we evergreen those often. Those units that are still serviceable, we keep for spares because we do have similar equipment at different stages in the evergreen cycle elsewhere in the network, so we will keep them for spares and redeploy them as we need to. As well, some of them we will use as backup data centres, backup data centre equipment, but once it is no, longer serviceable – the switches, the servers and those types of things – then they are sent to be recycled at a recycling facility if there is no other use.
When we look at the desktop and the laptops, when those are evergreened, there is more of a demand for those, certainly for NGO use and various organizations. We do have a program where we bring them back to the warehouse and keep a certain number of them available there for any group that comes forward looking for them. We work closely with the Computers for Schools program as well. They send them out for various NGO organizations as well. Whatever we can on the desktop side and the server side, we try to recycle and reuse as much as possible. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Guy. Mr. Dolynny.
I do appreciate the response. It sounds like we are moving in a direction or we make this retrofit equipment. I am thinking more or less along desktops and laptops. These things have some usability here, but I still think there is a bit of confusion as to where we can source this.
If it is in a major centre like Yellowknife, how do the small communities have access to our warehouse here? Can someone dial in? Is there an inventory list with pictures?
Would the government look at facilitating and getting that equipment to the smaller communities that may not find a home here in Yellowknife so that we are truly recycling all of our equipment properly throughout the Northwest Territories? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Abernethy.
Madam Chair, as a Regular Member I had an opportunity to travel to Ulukhaktok. When we were in Ulukhaktok, we met with the school. They had a significant number of computers that were actually old government computers from Yellowknife. They got there through the Computers for Schools program. There are a number of ways that different groups make requests to the department on a fairly regular basis. When we have stock, we are happy to work with them to dispose of it. We have also had situations where MLAs have come to us indicating that there are some needs in a community. Can we use old computers? We will work with them on that. We are open to anybody approaching us to obtain these old assets for schools and other community benefitting opportunities.
It sounds like we have what I call pull technology, where people have to come to the government to pull that information or extract that information as to what is available from the evergreening process. Would the government consider a department in creating a push technology which they allow everyone to see what is available that has been retrofitted, a website design or something where people can dial in, these NGOs can dial in and say, you know what, I will take those four computers, and would the government then assist in getting those at a reasonable cost to an NGO, schools or whatever organization that could use them in a real easy push-pull type system? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Certainly it is an interesting idea. I will talk to the department. I will talk to the TSC to find out what might be the best way to make sure that people have information and people understand that there is product available should they choose, and where we go from there, certainly address them working with communities and schools to get those products out to them.
There are no further questions. Do we have any further questions on this section, page 5-7? Does committee agree that we are done Public Works and Services, activity summary, Technology Service Centre, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $1.560 million?
Agreed.
Thanks, committee. We will go to page 5-10, Public Works and Services, activity summary, petroleum products division, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $3.776 million. Mr. Bromley.
For several years we pushed for Public Works and Services to examine this division with the potential or the possibility of incorporating a wood pellet purchase, transport and storage distribution system. I was very pleased to see the department actually conduct research on that question and produce a fairly positive report on it. In the report they detailed that wood pellet heat in almost all of the roaded communities was in the order of 50 to 60 percent of fuel oil cost, so a huge savings to be had. Although there were other roaded communities, winter-roaded communities, where the most remote community had a savings of a modest 7 percent compared to fuel oil. Obviously, switching to biomass from fuel oil would bring great savings to the high cost of living in these communities which is typically very high, especially compared to our larger centres. If biomass was available, that might be realized, and especially, again, if there was assistance from government to switch over, that would enable such benefits to be realized by residents and local businesses.
They reported rates. They have compared to fuel oil, but they didn’t talk about really reduced storage costs and related contaminant cleanups of fossil fuels compared to the sawdust that wood pellets are typically made of. Yet, I am led to understand that there is a refusal of the department to follow up on the clear opportunities that were identified to assist residents and businesses in the small communities where private enterprise does not have the capacity to provide this service or to compete with the subsidized fuel oil provided by Public Works and Services.
I am wondering if this is still the case or if they have seen the light here. If not, why are they not pursuing these opportunities in this day and age when we see the opportunity for 30 to 40 percent savings on our fuel bills, especially in the high cost communities? It is nothing to be sneezed at. Why would we not pursue this opportunity to manage that cost of living as well as, as Minister Miltenberger said earlier today, actually manage? We claim that we are managing greenhouse gas emissions. Here is a real opportunity to make this significant end.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Abernethy.
Madam Chair, the facts that the Member has just read out are consistent with the report that we provided. We agree with the Member completely. The challenge and the reason we are not pursuing changing over any of our current facilities to biomass at this time, is in the 16 communities that we are the provider of petroleum products, there isn’t actually demand for pellets now.
I know the obvious argument is, well, if you bring it, they will provide or they will utilize it, but in the meantime we would have facilities and structures that are sitting unused; whereas right now we have significant demands for the oil product in those 16 communities.
We have to make sure that those tanks are safe. We have to make sure that they are to code. We have to make sure that they are full so that people can have automotive and home fuel.
We have limited budgets. We need to continue to provide the product in those 16 communities that are currently in demand. We will continue as a government to do activities that will help us encourage people to utilize different product.
We ourselves are going down that road. We are turning over boilers to pellet and biomass on a regular basis. We have a Capital Asset Retrofit Fund. As the markets turn, we may get to a position where we are a provider of pellets or other biomass in those 16 communities, but we are not there yet. Right now there is no plan to change any of those communities into anything other than biomass. When they are, we will be in a position to change our product and meet their demand.
Right now, in PPD, we are the provider. We have to provide what the market is demanding. We have to make sure they have enough to get through our long, cold winters and that they have enough fuel for their snow machines so that they can go hunting. We need to make sure that product is there, and we are committed to getting that product there safely, and we’re committed to storing it safely, and we’re committed to distribute it to the people in the communities safely.
I don’t really accept that argument. The demand is not there because the pellets are not there. In every one of our communities, of course, we have government facilities and they would also benefit and easily be able to contribute to any additional costs of this program. Recognizing that the department would have to struggle with the up-front costs of replacing those boilers in government facilities and so on. When we’re talking about 30 percent, 40 percent and greater savings, 45 percent, 48 percent savings, the payback times on those have been demonstrated to be quite effective and we do have a borrowing capacity. When there are those sorts of returns, I suspect that’s considered a wise investment. It does require some work and I commend the department for doing the study, but then to ignore the huge possibility here for savings is still perplexing.
To say there’s no demand, well, we have broad government goals here, one of which is to enjoy environmental benefits and reduce the cost of living. Go out and create the demand by supplying the pellets. That alone would not be a big cost, obviously. I guess I would just, I have heard the Minister. I realize it’s not easy but I would urge him to not put it on the back burner and to begin working on how to get this done during the life of this Assembly.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I didn’t really hear a question there. I’ll go to the Minister for comment if he wishes.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m listening closely and I believe we are wanting to get to the same place, the Member and I. I think we have slightly different opinions on how to get there.
This department and the government are focusing on supporting the demand, helping to create demand. We are becoming purchasers of pellet boilers and other biomass product on a regular basis.
The Department of Public Works and Services is an active member participating on the development of a Biomass Strategy. We are focusing much of our investment on actually utilizing the product and creating demand in the communities.
As far as being a supplier of pellets in those 16 communities, we need to make sure there’s demand there. We need to make sure that we have an opportunity to put in machine boilers and whatnot. But this is a big territory, and there are 33 communities and every community has some demand, and we’re hitting those communities where we can get maximum benefit and build on those. Some of those smaller communities, there isn’t a demand right now. We need to work our way there and that’s going to happen. It’s going to take some time in some of the smaller communities.
We are focused on trying to reduce our costs and we will over time. But to put biomass storage in those 16 communities when there’s no demand doesn’t seem like the right investment now. Investing in actually utilizing and putting in pellet systems where there is a market and getting the immediate benefits on both greenhouse gas emissions and costs seems like a better investment of money up front. We will get, over time, to where the Member wants us to get. It will take time.
I would just say that this government has a strong focus on internal operations and we’re doing a good job there, but when we see a real opportunity for engaging the public and assisting them in taking on our goals and enjoying the benefits of it, we seem to fail. We have a record of failure there. As long as we continue to think that way, that’s the way it will be. This government will enjoy the costs or benefits that we’re getting but we won’t achieve the broad government goals because we’re a small part of northern society.
I understand the Minister’s comments and I say it’s not so much how as when, and the failure to recognize that we need to engage the public to help us achieve our goals. We cannot do it ourselves simply working internally. Just a comment again.
Once again the Member and I agree; the government cannot do this ourselves. Fortunately, the private sector businesses presently sell and distribute pellets and pellet fuel in communities where significant market demand exists. In fact, in Yellowknife, if we remember, some of the first pellets systems that the government were involved with were driven by the market in our corrections facilities.
The private enterprise is a valuable partner in this particular area. They have been a leader in this area and we want to continue to work with them and we’d like to see business continue to push hard in this area. It’s a win-win for everybody. So we don’t believe that we’re the only player in the game. We don’t think we should be the only player in the game. We’d like to see industry continue to step up like they have. They’ve done some amazing things here in the North.
Obviously, the Minister is circuitous now in his thinking. Private enterprise would be providing fuel in our communities if that was the case. The reason we are in these 16 communities is because private enterprise is not there to do that.
Can the Minister say, with a straight face, that at 40 percent savings on your fuel bill, there would not be the demand if that form of fuel was there and you had a choice between the two?
If the question was as simple as that, it wouldn’t be that hard to agree. There’s more to it than that and the Member knows that.
We can put the pellets in, but until people start purchasing and have the money to actually put in their own pellet heating systems – which we all know a pellet boiler in a house is probably $20,000 even with the subsidies that are available through organizations like Arctic Energy Alliance – many people in the small communities aren’t going to be able to afford those anyway. We need to work with the communities to help them create a market. When the demand is there, we would absolutely be interested in putting those facilities to provide pellets.
With no market and a strong demand for diesel and gasoline, we have to provide what the people need to heat their homes to be safe, to be warm, to use their snowmobiles to go hunting, to get out on the land, to transport themselves around the communities. There are demands for those products that we have to provide. Even with biomass we’re never going to be completely out of the business unless somebody in private enterprise decides to go into those communities and provide, because we’re still going to need aviation and automotive fuel.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Are there any further questions on this section? Mr. Bromley could probably question us for the rest of the afternoon. Seeing no further, Public Works and Services, activity summary, petroleum products division, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $3.776 million.
Agreed.
If we would return to the department summary on page 5-2, Public Works and Services, department summary, infrastructure investment summary, total infrastructure investment summary, $24.536 million.
Agreed.
Does committee agree that we are concluded the Department of Public Works and Services?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Thank you, Minister, and thank you to your witness, Mr. Guy. Sergeant-at-Arms, if you would escort the witness out of the Chamber, please.
Committee, we will move on to page 6-2, Health and Social Services. I’d like to ask Mr. Beaulieu if he has witnesses that he would like to bring into the Chamber.
