Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Member noted, the Dettah road reconstruction is out there somewhere. It’s not readily apparent over the next number of years, but we appreciate the comment.
On the issue of a protocol for environmental sustainability ratings I’ll have to ask at the appropriate time for Mr. Aumond to reply to that. Clearly, the issues of energy efficiencies and the long term value we’re going to get for the money we are spending on the capital project are very important ones in this day and age. I might ask, Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, if Mr. Aumond might add a few comments on that, and I’ll come back to some of the Member’s other concerns.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We don’t really have an environmental or sustainability rating for each of our facilities. Usually we try to achieve the lowest life cycle costs for the building over its life, which would include maximizing energy efficiency of the building, which would intuitively reduce the greenhouse gases as well.
Through our design criteria and our good building practices, we do have design criteria that will exceed the national energy code by at least 25 per cent. I would put our buildings, energy efficiency wise, against anyone’s in the country from that aspect.
We try to reduce the impact on the environment by reducing the amount of energy we need to operate, to heat the building and ventilate air through the building, et cetera. It is something we could look at and we could explore. I would be happy to at the appropriate time. Maybe we could come back to committee and have that discussion.
Just quickly to conclude the issue of the evaluation process framework and the interest of the committee to see that work, we could commit to share that information and get feedback so that we can design the best evaluation framework possible. We will work with the folks from program review as well, since we want to be consistent as we do our evaluations across government.
The issue of IT costs is a difficult one. One of the biggest issues, of course, is the short life cycles that a lot of the equipment has. I’m one of the older Members here. I come from the days when they still used Telex; they didn’t have faxes initially. We definitely have invested significantly in all the new developments. It’s a discussion that is consistently challenging for us. We are very dependent on the systems we have for their efficiencies and the time and ability to respond in very fast turnaround fashion.
For example, with e-mail the expectation is that you can correspond with people, and you want an answer within minutes of sending the e-mail. You’re hoping that somebody has looked at it and you’re going to get some type of response, whereas in the old days you’d have to write an old fashioned letter and stick it in the mail.
There are costs to the speed and timeliness. That discussion, as the Member said, can be like quicksand. It’s an investment that has to be sustained and maintained.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Next on the list is Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the Capital Estimates for the next year and the next three years I guess we must have fallen off the list. It’s not fair for Nunakput and it’s not fair for Tu Nedhe. All week my Member’s statements have been regarding the elders facility I want to get built in Tuktoyaktuk. We’re not wanting to send our elders away from their homes. It’s simple little things like that.
In Tuk there’s overcrowding in the school. Having to share bathrooms, it’s not right. We’ve got sea cans outside for storage, but then we can build a $130 million super school in Inuvik, where I attended high school. It’s just not fair to us. My people expect to be treated fairly; I expect to get no more and no less for my people. I’m here to almost stir things up today, I guess. I’m not making any friends here.
In Sachs Harbour we’ve got a water truck pump that breaks down. It takes two to three days before parts are flown into the community to get water delivered. That’s not right.
Talking to the monies we are getting for the next three years, I probably couldn’t even buy the insulation for the retrofit at Kam Lake school if it wasn’t for the federal monies that are going in through the Building Canada Fund for my access road. This is not fair.
My people have the highest cost of living in the Northwest Territories. I have elders — I sound like a broken record sometimes in regard to telling you — who have no groceries; families are living from day to day; power bills are too high. After seeing this, oh man, I’ve got to try to get on this list somehow. If it means clawbacks, it’s got to be done.
We’re really busy trying to get on the list for the stuff I am bringing up. I’ll be bringing stuff in the House next week to see if we could put them on the list. Some Ministers’ ridings have got some stuff put on the list for this last year that has been pushed through. Hopefully, I’ll get the same satisfaction of seeing something done.
The Minister said earlier in his statement that the $12 million capital needs for the 20 year assessment has got to be looked at sooner than later. It’s got to be fair. All the money that I’m hearing…. It’s not right; it’s not fair for the people. You’ve got four communities in the Northwest Territories that are like a vacuum for this money, but then the small communities are waiting for handouts. It’s not right.
Like I said, we fell off the list; I’m trying to get back on. We need to meet the needs of my people of Nunakput and be treated fairly on this.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Member’s concerns and comments.
I’d just like to add another project that’s on the list that should help with the cost of living. If we move forward once again with the ability to progress on our alternative energy priorities, the Tuk wind farm, which would be a significant investment, is one of the ones on the top of the list to be done when those resources become available.
I’d also like to suggest that even though it’s not part of this capital plan, there is the housing capital allocation for communities that may be of interest. I’m not sure what’s all in there for the ’09–10 budget, but it would help round off some of the concerns. Many of the concerns raised by Members in regard to the capital plan actually touched on housing, just as an information item.
The other comment is with the infrastructure money to communities. The Member for Nunakput’s communities will be getting $4.6 million as well for their community needs over the coming year, ’09–10.
To answer, Mr. Minister, $4.6 million is a lot of money. Probably you get that on the interest rate on your $100 million school we’re building. All I’m going to say, again, is that it’s not fair. We’ve got to do something about it. If it wasn’t for the federal monies, I wouldn’t be getting anything. Thank you. That’s all I have to say.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. I didn’t hear a question. I’ll take it as a comment. Next on my list is Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s a question for the Minister. I’m fairly certain that the deferred maintenance program is for buildings only, but just for confirmation I want to know if the GNWT did an evaluation of its buildings, roads and equipment prior to the expenditures for this year, the ’08–09 $5 million expenditures. I was wondering if there was any evaluation done prior to that to determine the cap, to determine where the money got spent.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The initial work on quantifying the deferred maintenance amount was focused on buildings only.
Did the GNWT evaluate its buildings to complete the deferred maintenance programs in order to determine the allocations for this year and future years?
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we have inspected close to 500 assets to date. We’ve sorted them by community but also sorted them by priority. With the money we do have available through the deferred maintenance initiative, also through combining with the large capital plan, our intention is to address the priority one, which is the critical infrastructure and is estimated at around $20 million out of the $350 million or so we’ve identified to date. That’s spread out among most of the communities we’ve identified, and we’ve shared the plan for ’08–09 with the committee. We do have a four year plan as well that we can share.
Just to confirm, the Department of Public Works will share the deferred maintenance plan with Regular Members.
We can share the plan. The ’09–10 plan has already been shared with committee and with Members. As the year is going forward, we can also share as well.
I must have missed that. I didn’t see the deferred maintenance plan, but that’s good. I’ll look forward to getting a copy of the deferred maintenance plan for this year and just look forward to receiving the rest of the plan.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. I didn’t hear a question, more of a comment. Next on my list is Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had a couple of questions, and they get back to the planning process and how things are signed off.
When we look at negotiated contracts.... There was a bit of an exchange earlier today. I just wanted, I guess, to get some clarity on where in the process a negotiated contract is signed off, when exactly that happens. Maybe the Minister could help me out a little bit.
On a negotiated contract when in the process does that get signed? I’m asking, because earlier today a Minister said that a contract was signed. But if it hasn’t been approved by us, what contract are you signing? What’s it for, and how much is it for?
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is a Negotiated Contracts Policy that this government must follow when awarding contracts through that type of process. Generally, the conditions on a negotiated contract are that you need to have community support through the support of the mayor and the MLA, and it has to have Cabinet approval.
Once Cabinet has approved a negotiated contract, you still need to negotiate that contract with the contractor on the agreed upon price. If you can’t come to an agreement on a price, then you need to go back and seek authority for more money, if that’s the case. Sometimes you can’t reach a deal and you don’t follow through with a negotiated contract. There’s a policy in place that must be adhered to, and it’s a public policy. It’s been around for a long time. It was just revised last fall. That has to be followed and is followed.
What was agreed to last year in terms of capital dollars for the school in Inuvik? Again, I’m not saying we shouldn’t be building a school or anything like that — I don’t want to upset anybody — but how much is that school going to cost us today, and are we still negotiating how much it’s going to cost us? I think that’s a legitimate question. I’d be asking the same question if that school was being built in Yellowknife; trust me.
We have awarded a contract for the school in Inuvik, but we have not signed a contract between the parties. The parties have agreed on a price, subject to the final details being worked out, and the price is within the authority that the department had been given by Cabinet to negotiate the contract for.
I’m just having a little bit of trouble understanding, then, because earlier today, I believe, the Minister said that a contract was signed. Specifically, what are they signing? Obviously, it sounds like the negotiations are still ongoing; there hasn’t been approval. When does the approval of the Members of this House come into play? I know we approved some dollars last year, but they’re carried over, and that project still hasn’t proceeded. So what are we signing? Is it a blank cheque?
Essentially, we have authority to negotiate up to a certain limit by Cabinet. We have an agreement with the contractor on that price. There are still some other administrative details to be worked out before the contract can be signed. We have a letter of award to the contractor, and we have not yet signed a contract. There are still some details to be worked out, but the price has been agreed to, and it is within the authority that we have from Cabinet to negotiate the contract for.
Was that amount approved by this House, or was that amount approved by Cabinet?
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Contracts are always subject to approval by the House.
Again, I’m just having a little bit of trouble understanding how you can award a contract that hasn’t been approved by the House. Anyway, I guess it’s just a funny thing when you’re negotiating what would appear…. I mean, nobody has yet told me what exactly it’s going to cost. There have been numbers thrown around, anywhere between $120 million and $140 million.
If I could, I’d just provide a recommendation, if you will. This is a project for which we need to expedite the process; we need to find out exactly what we’re building and put a cap on it before it grows in cost any more than it already has. I would put this at the top of the priority list. When you’re going out there and trying to get a project completed, let’s dot the i’s, cross the t’s and do whatever you can to make sure that this project doesn’t increase in cost by any more millions of dollars. I haven’t heard anybody tell me exactly what it’s going to cost, because I don’t think anybody knows. Mr. Chairman, I think we should know, and we should try to nail it down and get it done.
Mr. Chairman, we have a very clear, specific figure that’s been agreed to, but the contracting process has not been concluded. Therefore, we have to respect the confidentiality of that process until the final documents have been signed. Once those documents have finally been signed, we would be very willing to share that number with the committee. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Okay; I’m going to jump in on this one here. Mr. Miltenberger says we have a very clear price we have agreed to. Is the very clear price we have agreed to the price that was authorized? Was it the dollar amount that was authorized that was approved by this House that somebody — I don’t know; Mr. Roland? — just referred to and said it was approved in last year’s budget? Is it the same amount?
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s within the appropriation.
It’s within the appropriation. This is really getting confusing. Earlier today Mr. Lafferty said the contract for the Inuvik school has been awarded. Mr. Miltenberger says a very clear price has been agreed to. I’m sure there was a very clear price agreed to when we approved the budget last year for this particular capital project. Was the amount agreed to in the award of the contract the same as what this House voted to approve? Yes or no? Thank you.
The number that’s in the capital plan of $115.365 million, the number that’s been agreed to, though not finally signed off by the Government of the Northwest Territories, is within that appropriation.
Was the amount agreed to in last year’s capital plan and budget for the entire $115 million, or was it for a portion of that?
Last year was for a portion of that $115 million.
So in fact, then, Mr. Chairman, the amount that was indicated in the contract that has been awarded, which is a very clear amount, has not been approved by this House.
It’s subject to approval by the House.
I’m sorry; I didn’t hear that. It wasn’t very loud. It is subject to the approval of this House. Is that what he said?
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Yes, that’s what he said. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. All of our construction contracts have a clause in there that they are subject to approval by the House. The appropriation must be approved by the House. That’s a subject to clause. This project is no different. It’s subject to the approval of the House in the plan before you today.
We have awarded and we gave a letter of award for the contract on the project. We have not signed a contract with the contractor as there are still details to be worked out. But this contract, like any other, is subject to approval of this House. Thank you.
Okay. So if this House does not approve this appropriation and this contract has already been awarded, what position does this government find itself in if we do not proceed with this contract that’s been awarded? If we do not agree to the appropriation for this project, what kind of exposure have we got?
We have not signed a contract with the contractor, so we have no exposure to the contractor.
So we have awarded the contract, but we haven’t signed the contract. You know, this is kind of a fine line here. Does the awarding of the contract in any way legally bind this government to this contract in the absence of the actual appropriation of the money approved in this House?
