Thank you, Member for Nunakput. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This project is part of a capital plan that was approved not by any Member here in this Assembly but by the prior Assembly. Certainly, when the next capital plan comes forward, then that certainly will be an opportunity to question why. If there is not a project at that point in one of the smaller communities, that would be an opportunity to press any Member of Cabinet with what those plans might be going forward. At this point, what we are doing is carrying over money on a project that is already underway, that was already approved. I'm not sure that we'll be in a position to create a new project right now, on the fly, in this context. All the departments, of course, are starting to think about their next round of capital planning. In hearing the passion that the Member brings to this, that is certainly being heard both here and, I'm sure, back in the departments, as well, as they are listening to this. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister of Finance. Member for Nunakput.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This seems to be funny for my colleagues across the table here. I'm concerned in regard to the way things happen here, fairness. Like I said before, and I did a Member's statement on this, we're tired of having our members, our elders, taken out of our communities and then the only time they're home is when you're bringing them home to bury them. That's what this is. For myself, I'm passionate about it. Like I said, you don't need another 48 beds. Take 30 beds and give six to my communities; give six to Paulatuk; give six to Sachs or to Ulukhaktok. We need this. I'm really taken aback in regard to how things go. They said this is a changed government; let's change it, pretty simple. They never even started the geotech, so it's easy to change. Make it smaller. They're talking about no problem making it bigger because of COVID-19, bigger common areas, bigger bathrooms, bigger this, bigger that. Other projects in our small communities are the ones that are lacking in regard to providing services to all 33 communities, not just the main centres. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Nunakput. Did you have any further comments?
Madam Chair, almost every Minister here is scrambling right now because almost everyone wants to add something. I'm hearing that there are a number of projects that are underway to support moving elders out of Yellowknife and back to their regions, that there are aging-in-place retrofits being looked at for the smaller centres across the Northwest Territories. I'm being reminded, also, that the committee will be seeing, hopefully, a draft of the 2021-2022 Capital Plan by July. Once they see that capital plan, there will be an opportunity for Members from across the Northwest Territories to determine whether or not the plan at that point reflects the projects that they think are reflective of the priorities of the Assembly and they can certainly, at that point, as well, have the questions in place to every department about what steps they are taking to ensure that elders are in fact aging-in-place, simply calling in action on what was said earlier in the House. There may well be a motion on this very issue or a version or a related matter later in this week. In terms of the review of the supplementary estimates and the infrastructure carry-overs, Madam Chair, I'm not sure that this is an opportunity for me to do very much right now, other than to say that this project was approved by the last Assembly and there is some unspent money that they're asking to carry over. Unless there is a motion to change that, which I don't think that is what I am hearing from the Member, I think he is suggesting to us that we need to do things differently going forward. As I said, there was quite a scramble here of everyone saying the things that they are already doing to do things differently going forward, including the fact that this draft plan for the capital expenditures is coming forward to committee probably next month. I think it's very apparent to us that we should be expecting to be answering questions on what in that Capital Plan will be there to support elders in the smaller communities. I'll leave it at that. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister. I will move on to Member for Thebacha.
I don't have any questions, Madam Chair, because it was answered.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. On page 11, there is $16 million for what looks, to me, like renovations to the Stanton legacy building. Let me start by saying we do need more long-term care beds in Yellowknife. How much has been spent on renovations to date? What is the total cost of renovations on the Stanton legacy building? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, being an infrastructure supplementary that deals largely with carry-overs, I don't know that I have the total amount spent on renovations with me. I take that back. I might. If I could ask the director to answer the question or attempt to answer the question for me, please. Director of the Management Board Secretariat, please.
That's Mr. Courtoreille. How do you pronounce your last name, sorry? I need to get it correct.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It's Terrence Courtoreille. For those two projects referred to by the Member, one project has a total budget amount of $14 million, just over $14 million, and the second project is just under $58 million.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I'm trying to understand why we're spending $72 million for renovations on a building that we're not even going to own at the end of the day. This is part of a weird P3 arrangement that I could never really get to the bottom of in the last Assembly.
Can someone explain to me why we have to spend this much money on renovations when we're not going to own the building and we're going to have to lease the space afterwards? Is that what this arrangement is all about? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would be more than happy to offer that explanation, but to be quite frank, I do not have that contract or those arrangements in front of me and was simply not anticipating to be defending the entire P3 arrangement around Stanton today. I will be more than happy to give that answer, but I think I can really just commit to getting that detail. I am not going to be in a position to answer that fulsomely today.
Thank you, Minister of Finance. Member for Frame Lake.
Sure. Thanks. I didn't anticipate getting into this level of detail in some of these things, as well. I take it, then, that the Minister is prepared to provide that information following this discussion. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.
Sorry, Madam Chair. The answer is yes, but there is a fairly large question there around getting into the justification for a project that, again, began in the 18th Assembly, and there is possibly a bigger conversation around why we would have a P3 project in general.
Yes, I will commit to getting some more detail about the nature of the project and the nature of the agreement, the pros and cons of the agreement, and the benefits thereof. If that is a satisfactory commitment to the Member, then that is where I am at. If I am missing something, I will be corrected, I'm sure.
Thank you, Minister. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I am happy to take that commitment from the Minister. I just want to correct one thing. This is actually something that was started in the 17th Assembly, or just before the election, maybe. I just want to know why we are spending $72 million on renovations for a building that we are not going to own and then we have to lease back space out of it. It just doesn't sound right to me, but I'm happy to get the Minister's explanation following this meeting. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Did you have any further questions? All right. I will go back to Member for Thebacha.
Madam Chair, I just want clarification also, now, with this P3 with the $72 million. We are not going to own it. Even with some of these modifications and renovations, and further on with the tenders, the government still puts the tenders out, or does the owner of the building have a say in who gets the tender? Could you give clarification on that, please? You are not very specific in your answers even to other Members today. I would like being specific. When you're putting a building up or doing a renovation, even with the planning, usually you're very specific, even if you're going to be doing it in a negotiated contract. You have not been very specific exactly with your answers, and I want to make sure that you answer me specifically with what you are going to be doing.
Thank you, Member for Thebacha. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There is an ongoing project to renovate the Stanton legacy building, and right now, there is a $9,782,000 carry-over that is being requested, because that is an amount that was cash flow last year that wasn't used up in that period. The Department of Health and Social Services is asking to carry it forward to continue the project that is under way. Right now, that is what I have in front of me. I don't have all of the project specifics in front of me, because that would be part of the capital planning project that would have been approved, as I have said, under the 18th Assembly and planned, it sounds like, under the 17th Assembly.
Our own capital planning process will be in draft form before the Members next month, at which point there would be, I imagine, a very detailed breakdown of exactly where the projects are at, and what stage they're at, and what the current cash flow projections are going to be for the next year going forward. I am happy to have that conversation again at that point, in terms of looking at where we are at in these projects and determining if, in fact, we want to continue to have these projects on our capital plans.
For the moment, all that is being requested is to be able to continue the work that is under way, and that was previously approved. I have already made a commitment to another Member as far as determining and providing information on the pros and cons of this overall project. Again, I will be happy to get that and make that commitment. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister of Finance. I just want to remind Members to keep their questions focused to the carry-overs and not the overall project of the P3. The Minister has already agreed to provide us information if we have more questions on the P3 process. We have that commitment already. Member for Thebacha.
We won't ask questions on the P3, but the results of this P3 are tremendous. We are in a COVID-19 pandemic, and many of our communities don't even have procedures that were actually offered in our health centres. Yet, we are putting $72 million in the end, probably negotiated contract and not tender, not own the building, and I can't even get bloodwork analyzed at the Fort Smith health centre. That is disgusting. You know? When you do these things and don't do it in a proper way of transparency and accountability, it's disturbing. I don't have any further comments, and I don't have any questions, but it's something to think about. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member for Thebacha. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Mahsi. I'm just thinking, I have a quick question about the Stanton legacy building. They are split up into two different line items for just under $9.8 million and another one for just under $6.2 million. Why are they split up the way they are? It seems like they are both going towards the same building, but it's just south of $16 million. We are just going to sign off, and I would like to know a little bit more about it. Why were the numbers split up into the two items? Marsi cho.
Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to turn that one over to the assistant deputy Minister, Mr. Koe.
Mr. Koe.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, they are two separate projects, because one is around the base building and, obviously, getting the Stanton building upgraded so that it is a building that meets all the standards of a building of that nature for today. The other project is the renovations to get that building renovated for the long-term care facility and services that will be operated in there; so they are two separate projects. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Koe. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the response. Can you just expand on what base buildings are, just so I understand a little bit better? Thank you.
Thank you, Member. Mr. Koe.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The base building modifications, and that's the word for it, were to get, you know, things like all of the materials that were in the building out, whether there was hazardous materials in there or not, but to get those out. The project was to get that building to a suitable situation so that the workers can come in to do those renovations for the long-term care facilities and the other facilities that will be in there. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Koe. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am still trying to wrap my head around this a little better. Are there other buildings around? When I hear base buildings, I hear, like, some extra adjacent buildings are going to be on that lot that are going to be built. Is that what I'm hearing? Thank you.
Thank you, Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. Minister of Finance.
Madam Chair, I think, and I feel like there is a crowd of people around me who will correct me if I'm wrong, but it's essentially that the base buildings, that's the preparatory work so that the renovations can then be done, in simple terms. No, I'm still wrong. I'm going to try. Madam Chair, if I could send it over to director, Terence Courtoreille, please.
Mr. Courtoreille.
My apologies, Madam Chair, but I missed the question, as I was writing down my notes.
I think, just trying to round up what you're saying, is there are two projects. There is a line item for the legacy building renovations, and then it's the building base building modifications. So there are two line items, and why are they broken out into two? What is the difference between a base building and the renovations? If somebody could clarify that, and are there two buildings? One building? Is it the whole Stanton Hospital? Does it include any other buildings? Thank you. Who wants to answer this? Mr. Koe.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I know I'm not quite explaining myself well, here, but there is just the one building, the old Stanton building. The project had two separate projects, which was two stages, and one was to get that building up to I'm going to use the word "code," get that up to the base code. I see the Minister if Infrastructure is cringing at my comment, but it was to get that up to a base place where everything was signed off and everything was hazard-free so that a different project could begin to do the renovations. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Koe. Does the Minister of Infrastructure want to add any details? Please.
Sure. Basically, from a contracting perspective, when they wanted to go in with the new consortium to do the renovations to make it usable, that had to be one contract; but, in order to get to that stage so that the building was at a spot where they could start doing the renovations, we had to remove HBMA, the hazardous building materials. So that had to be in its own contract, because it had nothing to do with this new company that was coming in to do the renovations. So, basically, we had to present the building in a certain state, so that first contract is to get rid of that, all the HBMA, get it so that it's in a state so that we can then hand it over for the second contract. Does that make sense now?
