Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
Mr. Chairman, Environment and Natural Resources equips all of their offices and all of their staff in the field. The issue of vehicle use has been raised. I understand from talking to the deputy that they’re on the way to resolving that issue so that there is adequate service in all the communities.
Again, Mr. Chairman, my argument is that we have to ensure that we have people in the field who are equipped by way of having somebody on the road on the Dempster Highway, regardless of whether they are patrolling or what. If they don’t have radio for communication, to me that is putting that person in danger. Anything can happen when they’re on the road. The basics should include radios in their vehicles. Instead of giving them a vehicle that’s an old rundown pickup truck versus the nice fancy vehicles running around in Inuvik, they should be working those vehicles in the field. So why is that we have vehicles in the field without radios for communications?
The vehicles and ATVs and such, I understand, are all bought out of O&M. Clearly, the issue the Member raises is one that we’re concerned about and are paying attention to. As I’ve indicated, I’ve had discussions with the deputy about those concerns. My understanding is that the issue is on its way to being addressed.
Can the Minister tell me exactly how soon the issue will be resolved?
I anticipate, as we come forward to do the O&M and business plans, that we’ll be able to have a more fulsome discussion. We’ll have the deputy here and all the appropriate staff to deal with that particular issue.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. We’re on page 10-4, Environment and Natural Resources, Activity Summary, Corporate Management, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $336,000.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Activity Summary, Corporate Management, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $336,000, approved.
We’ll move along to page 10-7, Environment and Natural Resources, Activity Summary, Wildlife, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $402,000.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Activity Summary, Wildlife, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $402,000, approved.
We’ll move along to page 10-10, Environment and Natural Resources, Activity Summary, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to the Shell Lake storage building I’d like to know exactly what’s being done in that particular facility. Is that part of the move of the people from the office downtown out to Shell Lake? Is this a continuing expenditure on that particular move?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is to replace a building that is currently 30 years old to store forest fire equipment and supplies. It’s 80 square metres, and it’s a cold storage building.
Is that in regard to the pilings or substrate — the cost of that expenditure?
The design is a metal clad building on a foundation suitable for an unheated environment on permafrost.
In regard to the cost of the improvements at Shell Lake how much money has been expended there to date?
I don’t have that detail here with me. I have the capital substantiations, but I don’t have that program detail here with me.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to know if I can get that information, please.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. We’re on page 10-10, Environment and Natural Resources, Activity Summary, Forest Management, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $430,000.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Activity Summary, Forest Management, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $430,000, approved.
Return to page 10-2, the department summary. We’re on page 10-2, Environment and Natural Resources, Department Summary, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $1.168 million.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department Summary, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $1.168 million, approved.
Does the committee agree that we have concluded the Department of Environment and Natural Resources?
Agreed.
All right. What is the wish of the committee? Take a break? Let’s take a five minute break.
The Committee of the Whole took a short recess.
Let’s reconvene Committee of the Whole. We’re reviewing Tabled Document 93-16(2). We’ve just concluded Environment and Natural Resources. We’ll move along to the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. Is committee agreed?
Agreed.
Committee, when we deferred this item last Thursday, we were on page 7-7, so we’ll commence again with 7-7. Is the committee agreed?
Agreed.
We’re on 7-7, Education, Culture and Employment, Activity Summary, Education and Culture, Infrastructure Investment Summary, Total Infrastructure Investment Summary: $74.794 million. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just having a hard time finding it. Page 7-7? Oh, okay. All right. I’m just looking in the wrong book.
First of all, let me say that Public Works and Services has done a very good job of providing information. We asked for numerous things, which were provided in a very timely manner. Mr. Miltenberger was quoted in Hansard last week as saying that he couldn’t get a list of the subcontractors on the Inuvik schools project until the appropriation had been voted on in the House, and in fact, that list was provided to Members today. So that was very good.
The analysis on the cost per square foot compared to other schools that have been built recently was provided to us. Anyway, I could go on. There’s a long list of information that we requested as a committee that Public Works and Services got back to us with in a very timely manner and with the kinds of answers specifically we were looking for. It wasn’t like we asked one question and they provided some different information that was unrelated.
There was one thing I asked Mr. Miltenberger in the House last week, though. I asked him who signed the RODs that gave the authority to the Department of Public Works and Services to enter into the negotiations and the subsequent letter of intent with the contractor for the Inuvik schools. I was wondering if Mr. Miltenberger would have that information at this time.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The proposal for the negotiated contract was brought forward by the then Minister of Public Works and Services in August 2007, I believe. Permission was considered and authority was given by Premier Handley, who was Premier of the day.
Thank you. So Premier Handley signed off on the record of decision from the FMB to enter into the negotiations?
No. The issue first went to Cabinet. A Cabinet decision was made, and that record of decision was signed off by Premier Handley.
Was there a document that went from the FMB to the Cabinet, and who was that signed by?
The initiating approval for the negotiated contract was made by Cabinet, and that ROD was signed off by the Premier of the day, Premier Handley.
Again, I’m just not sure exactly of the processes. There is something that goes to the Cabinet — it’s called the pink — and it’s usually the FMB’s analysis of a particular project that’s before Cabinet. So there wouldn’t have been any other record of decision signed off other than the one signed by Mr. Handley and voted on by the Cabinet, correct?
Mr. Chairman, the decision to enter into a negotiated contract went to Cabinet and was agreed to in Cabinet, and that record of decision was signed off by Premier Handley.
Was there any other decision made by the Financial Management Board that was signed off?
As the process proceeded, there was sign-off for some additional funds that went to FMB, and that was signed off through the FMBS.
Thank you. Who was the signatory to that sign-off by FMB?
The chairman of FMB at that time was Minister Roland.
Okay. Thank you. The past week in the House we heard that when a Member of the Cabinet chooses to provide endorsement or a letter of support for a negotiated contract for a capital project in their riding, they will declare a conflict and not participate at the Cabinet or Financial Management Board table on that particular project. That’s what I think we heard. Is that correct?
What I can speak to is what I understand the process to be, which is that should a Member, an MLA who is the Minister, write a letter of support, in this case for a negotiated contract, when that decision comes before Cabinet for approval, the Minister who wrote that letter of support would declare conflict and leave the room through the full course of the proceedings up to the vote and a decision being made.
So just to be clear, then, it wouldn’t be normal for that same MLA to be signing in their capacity, whatever role they play in Cabinet, on that same contract. That would not be within keeping of the policy that Mr. Miltenberger has outlined.
Mr. Chairman, the issue is of the letter of support for the negotiated contract being either agreed to or not by Cabinet. Once that decision is made, the issue of conflict, as far as I understand from what our system tells us, is no longer an issue. In this case Premier Roland — Minister Roland at the time — had written a letter of support. He declared conflict when the issue came before Cabinet and was not in the room when the decision was made that already was signed off, as we just discussed, by Premier Handley. After that, this goes into the capital process. The negotiated contract process takes place, and it then becomes just a matter of other business that the government is doing and is not a matter of further potential conflict.
Mr. Chairman, this particular project was first presented to Members in terms of correspondent communication with Cabinet at a certain dollar value. It has changed quite substantially with the passing of time with the work that’s gone into identifying pricing through subcontractors, with the scope probably having been examined and re-examined. So the initial project dollar value as presented that was approved and signed off by Minister Handley…. Well, first of all, I should ask the question rather than make a statement. When there is a record of decision signed off by Cabinet that enters into a negotiated contract, is there is dollar value associated with that record of decision?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. When the price of the project changed, was there a subsequent approval process or signing off of any record of decision required?
Mr. Chairman, the issue of if the negotiations…. Where the negotiated contract exceeds the mandate that has been given, then there is requirement to come back to FMB for further approval.
Thank you. Would the Member that would have provided a letter of support, then, when it comes back to FMB, still be back in the same position? Because, really, the project didn’t double, but it definitely increased by at least 30 to 40 per cent. So does the same rule, I guess, of excusing oneself from those kinds of discussions apply, and do they put it on the original record of decision and proceed with the negotiated contract?
