Debates of October 22, 2004 (day 26)

Thank you, Madam Chair. Of course, God forbid if this ever happens again to anyone, let alone any territorial facility, but just anywhere. Were there any preliminary findings as to the cause of this, other than the simple answer of snow? Was there a structural default in the roof of this building of some sort that could lead to the cause of this? Could the Minister kind of highlight some of the root cause again, other than the snow? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, after a substantial amount of work done on this from the finance and insurance side, an audit was done on the facility as well as work done from the Public Works and Services end, to see if the procedures that were being followed and done were appropriate, as well as what may have been the cause of the failure.

There were a number of things that happened and the difficulty is the fact that this building is 37 years old and trying to go back to the actual construction of the facility and further repairs that may have been done. In doing the history and going back we had found that the roof itself was not a reason for collapse under pressure of snow, it wasn’t the trusses that were looked at. There was work done in that area, there was identified some repairs that happened after the original construction that we had to have a closer look at. When it comes down to it, a number of things came on and it wasn’t the roof itself, it wasn’t the support structure there, but what they found was the rear wall of the facility had collapsed and caused the rest of the roof to cave in. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That being said, recognizing that buildings certainly have a lifecycle and 37 years is a life, possibly that wall had lived its life. Would the Minister be able to assure us today that maybe this has created a paradigm shift on how we maintain our buildings? Possibly a policy change, and you know whereas we buy some ladders, shovels and snowsuits, that we make sure that these are clear from the anomalies of big, heavy snowfalls of some sort? Is there a policy change on how we maintain these buildings and what we are doing about it? Could the Minister elaborate? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As a result of this we did go back and look at our operations from the Public Works side and reviewed the practices that were being used, looked at other buildings in the territory that were constructed at the similar time, that had similar design and looked at, again, the operations that we did of O and M or maintenance. Those that we’ve felt that we had to have a closer look at, there was further inspection just to make sure that we did not find ourselves in that area, and maintenance procedures were looked at. In those places where we felt that there may be a possibility of something like this -- although remote as it is -- some of our practices have been adjusted. So there has been a fair bit of work done looking at facilities across the North of similar structure, similar design and with similar conditions on them, being the winter.

Initially, there was a lot of concern about snow load, and after the review it was confirmed it was not snow load that caused the collapse. There were some deficiencies in the rear wall itself. But trying to go back to that and track down actual contractors which are no longer in existence is very difficult. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one quick question with regard to the fire, the aftermath of the fire. I’m just wondering, Madam Chair, if the Minister can explain what kind of security was brought in after the collapse of the foyer. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There were a number of things that happened. One was to cordon off the area itself where the collapse happened. The facility was not in use for about three weeks. Repairs were started, inspections done on the facility and the normal work that would happen about that. When it was about to be opened, unfortunately there was an incident occurred where an individual had decided that they did not want to return to school is my understanding. So they lit one section of the school on fire. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to follow up with what Mr. Hawkins said earlier, I’m just wondering if in cases like this you can have more stringent procedures for security and all that if it happens to another building. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, part of the other end of this is from the insurance side in ensuring that we don’t sustain major losses. Risk assessments have been done in a number of areas to ensure our facilities are safe, that we have the proper procedures in place, and that in some cases we’re not over insured as well as not under insured. Also ensuring that they’re safe to go in because we sure don’t want to be caught in the situation where we lose any more. Thankfully there were no injuries as a result, beyond that of the fireman who was trying to help extinguish the fire that happened there. Beyond that, the security that then happened around the place because of the fire, as well as the collapse, there was a contract put in place to ensure that there was no further access. Once the work was done and the place secured and the normal mechanisms for entrances could be locked, there hasn’t been a further extension of that contract. That is something we’d have difficulty doing, is trying to get back into a place where we’d have 24-hour surveillance. When it comes to the safety of our building and assets, when it comes to self-insurance we have to ensure we have proper and adequate oversight on these things. But we don’t have a 24-hour contract in place for supervision. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, education and culture, special warrants, $2.5 million.

Agreed.

Total department, special warrant, $2.5 million, not previously authorized, $4,000.

Agreed.

On page 14, Transportation, operations expenditures, airports, not previously authorized, $81,000.

Agreed.

Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I ask a question on the $40,000 for the Yellowknife air terminal building? My understanding is this has something to do with contaminated areas or some areas there that need to be cleaned, but in this here it just says it’s for new baggage screening equipment and increased passenger volumes. Could I just get some more detail on that? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The first part of this, the $40,000 stated, is a result of a decision made that affects the Yellowknife Airport. We have to increase our baggage screening equipment and process. The second part of that, the $41,000, is the transfer of assets and the accounting of those assets for the Aklavik and Tulita old airport terminal facilities. The $400,000 involves much more that comes into play around the discussions the Department of Transportation has had with CATSA -- that’s the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority -- in the amount of work that needs to be done at that facility to bring it up to code before the year 2006. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My apologies; I mixed up two different items there. For Yellowknife air terminal building I’m just not sure why the money was spent in this way in that we have been aware since the September 11th attack that there have been lots of requirements being imposed on various airports, the Yellowknife Airport being one of them, to upgrade their facilities and baggage areas and better security and such. I’d like to know why it is that this was not incorporated into a main transportation budget and what transpired that required this to be spent, the money to be allocated in this way. We could understand the fire at the Inuvik school requiring emergency money, but why would the Yellowknife Airport require emergency money? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the work around the Yellowknife Airport and the discussions with CATSA were ongoing for quite some time. The department had hoped to conclude their discussions with CATSA to include it into the normal building cycle. Our concern was that as a result of what was being required around the baggage handling system, it was going to have further impacts on the facility and we were trying to secure more funding. Those discussions, unfortunately, carried over the timeline that would have allowed them to go into the previous business plan process when a decision was made and the timeline that was established to get the project underway did not allow for it to fall into the regular business planning process. So a number of things happened. One, during the discussion and negotiations that were taking place from our side, we felt there had to be more funds coming forward for this work that was happening; secondly, when the decision was finally made and we realized there was not going to be any further funding, we had to then act and put this in place because when you follow the timeline from when this equipment had to be in place and operation back to the building cycle, it was felt that we needed to proceed with this in this manner. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Then can we have an indication as to whether this is just the start of a lot more operational money that we are going to be approving? This is just to take care of things that need to be taken care of this year or in the interim before the next budget comes, because we know later on in the supplementary appropriation we have requests for a big capital funding that is going to go to the airport. I just want to know if this $40,000 for the Yellowknife Airport is stage one of many stages that are going to come and how much the final tally will be. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the project itself will be substantially more than what this is. This item is just the first little piece of it. On page 19 of the document is a further amount that is being requested or that we’ve…(inaudible)…accounted for. In the 2004-2005 year we’re looking at $3.4 million. When this work is done, on the operational side we estimate will be another $160,000 ongoing just for operations and maintenance. The rest of the plan will fall into the normal procedures through the business plan, through the capital infrastructure process. It’s my understanding that this information was shared from the Department of Transportation with members to inform them that this, in fact, was going to be happening. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Transportation, operations expenditures, airports, not previously authorized, $81,000.

Agreed.

Highways, special warrants, $273,000.

Agreed.

Total department, special warrants, $273,000, not previously authorized, $81,000.

Agreed.

On page 15, Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, operations expenditures, corporate management, not previously authorized, $15,000.

Agreed.

Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, not previously authorized, $200,000.

Agreed.

Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I’d like to have some more information on that because it sounds to me like this is an ongoing program and why is it that this was not in the budget to start with? Why did that happen? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The program itself was originated back in the days of the 13th Assembly, I believe, 1994. A program was initiated. The total amount of the program was for $15 million and eligible groups were able to apply for it. A formula was established based on the general hunting licences held by each region. That split out that money. It had to be matched by the organization. So if an organization wanted to see this, they had to come up with their dollars and it had to be put into a separate account and then they could start accessing it for those harvesters. The amount that’s left has shrunk substantially from the days it was put in. It is a capped program, so the only reason it’s ongoing is that some organizations haven’t drawn down what they were eligible for when this program first came out. The reason it doesn’t show up in the regular budget planning process is that we’re unaware of who would make a requirement on that fund and at what time of the year they would put in an application. It could sit there for a number of years without being drawn down, and until an organization comes forward with a plan in matching dollars, it sits there and we just address it this way because we’re unable to account for it when we go through our planning process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Madam Chair, I’m wondering about the outcome of these programs. Perhaps I should start by asking to what degree are organizations that receive contributions accountable for results or performance? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.