Mr. Heath.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just a little bit of a point of clarification. The Northern Frontier Visitors site is Commissioner's land. The property directly adjacent to the Northern Frontier Visitors site, which is more favourably geotechnically, is the site that, to achieve the same goals as being located on Northern Frontier Visitors site but not be on one that is as geotechnically complex, our preference would be to secure that piece of property. And we do not own that property, it is privatelyheld. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mahsi. Ms. Nokleby.
Thank you. So it's fair to say if we choose the location of the temporary shelter now, we would be looking to purchase the lot next to it and expand over that, sort of do a lot and I see a nodding so I don't bother to go back.
That being said, my question actually was around the geotech for the old visitors centre lot. It does kind of change now that I know that. But is there a potential to use old reports from when they were looking at the geotechnicals because the visitors centre was, you know, sinking or jacking up out of the ground, and I know they did some investigation at the time. So is there a possibility of doing a less intensive geotechnical by doing a bit of a desktop study and incorporating the older geotechnical reports? Thank you.
Minister.
Yes, thank you. I'll ask Mr. Heath to answer that question.
Mr. Heath.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have looked at those reports and went through extensively looking at that. The complication is the foundation system utilized previously was not successful and so the rationale and methodology that was employed in previous reports from previous designs could be determined as slightly vulnerable. The technology around building and in securing foundations in permafrost, as the Member is probably acutely aware, has evolved in the last few years, and if we were to develop on that site we would want to use the most recent and best technology to do it, which would require us to do new geotechnical studies. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Nokleby.
Thank you. Which would be great news for all my former colleagues there that would love to get that work. But now that I am aware that it would be involving the purchase of the lot next door, I have to caution or just a bit of a comment is that there are two contaminated sites right in that location. Both the Esso old Esso location and the old YK Motors, there is no way that the YK Motors site would not be contaminated due to the fact of the presence of the old gas station, which I know that I'm just speaking to the what the department already knows but thought it might be worthwhile clarifying. However, that being said, I do prefer the location being over there and not at the 51st Street. And I just would I guess want to make a comment that I don't think that the studies done on the 51st Street lot, out of that $650,000 pot, would actually be necessarily a waste. At some point the GNWT would look to be using that as an asset a site for a building of some sort or some sort of development, and therefore, any studies we're doing in our core to, you know, better characterize what the ground conditions are of Yellowknife is not a waste in my opinion. So that is more of a comment. And I don't think I have any further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mahsi, Ms. Nokleby. Ms. Cleveland.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I guess, first of all, congratulations to MLA Johnson. If you are a Yellowknifer and you don't know street names, it means you're properly acclimatized to be a Yellowknifer.
My question is for the Minister in regards to I just want an idea of why the Department of Health and Social Services is requesting money for a capital project that they don't really have kind of secure handle on what location's going to be used, what design's going to be used, when it will be completed, or what budget they're going to be requesting, given that this does not fall in line now with the new kind of capital budgeting processes outlined by the Finance Minister where, really, they're switching to wanting to be able to only borrow money or use money or put money in the capital plan that is actually going to be used. And so I'm just wondering why the department of health is putting this money in here rather than, first, I guess gaining answers to these questions and then coming back with either during next year's budgeting cycle or with a supplementary appropriation for funds once they have more answers. Thank you.
Minister.
Yes. There has been some investment in this project already. We thought we had a secure location and a secure budget for it. But much has changed in the last year. And so that's my general thought on that question. But I'll ask the assistant deputy minister if she would like to add some additional information.
Assistant deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is, as the Minister said, it's a plan that we have had in place and on the books. New things have come up as considerations; one of them being the impacts of COVID on supply chain and pricing and things like that. So a budget that we had in place for a project is something that we need to take a look at. And in the meantime, we've had a request to look at an alternate location. We feel we have a responsibility not to dismiss that request out of hand. We need to give it its due diligence and consider it. It is a complicated request, and so it's taking some time and there are lots of variables. But we are going to do that part so that we're not proceeding with a plan without having taken the time to hear that there might be other considerations.
Mahsi for that. Ms. Cleveland.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, my next question for the Minister is in regards to the request for a tractor for Hay River. And I just want to understand why a health authority would need to purchase a tractor and have one, I guess, of their own rather than potentially hiring a local contractor who owns a tractor to do whatever they're going to do with that tractor. And I'm just wondering if I can get more information on that. Thank you.
Mahsi for that. Minister.
Yes, thank you we're replacing the existing tractor rather than adding a new tractor. But I'll ask Mr. Heath if he wants to add anything more.
Mr. Heath.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The description of "tractor" might be a little bit more complex. This is basically a small unit that they use to keep the sidewalks and things clean and they it's on like an asandwhen basis. Having a local contractor on the beck and call of every given minute has proven to be complex, and it's been cost efficient, or I would say more serviceoriented for them to have their own unit. The existing one is worn out and as the Minister said, we're simply replacing it through our evergreen program. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mahsi for that. Ms. Cleveland.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. No, I appreciate that. I had visions of nursing staff on top of giant frontend loaders, so thank you for that.
My next question, I'm wondering if somebody can help me out here. I just simply don't know what 1300 BGSM or 1600 BGSM stands for. So I'm just wondering if somebody can help me out with that one. Thank you
Mahsi. Minister.
Yes, I think that's a size by volume. And Mr. Heath can tell you what that means in something more commonly used like square feet.
Mr. Heath.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Building gross square metres I believe is the acronym. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Cleveland.
No other questions. Thank you so much.
Any further questions from committee? I don't see any. We'll go back to page 41, Health and Social Services, programs, infrastructure investments, $28,415,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Mahsi, committee. Committee, please turn to page 44, longterm and continuing care services, with information item on page 45. Any questions from committee? I think we were accommodating two Members that I already saw them heading to the airport. They're heading home. So that's the reason we put this up here. If no one has any questions, then I will move on with this. Ms. Nokleby.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just curious to know, I note that we have four projects here under the longterm care facility; three are in planning. One is actually, I'm guessing, into construction. Can I get an idea of how much is going towards the planning and how much is going towards that construction Thank you.
Mahsi for that. Minister.
Yes, thank you I said to the Members for Thebacha and Hay River South that they could forward their questions to me. So these projects two of these projects are impacted by the flooding that occurred last year and this year. They were planned for areas which flooded in the respective years. So that has put some uncertainty into the budget because the location is not certain. The one that is furthest ahead at this point in planning is the Inuvik longterm care. And I'll ask Mr. Heath to provide the specific answer to the Member's question. Thank you
Mahsi for that. Mr. Heath.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our corporate capital planning process allocates, and this is not a hard and fast number, but approximately 5 percent of the overall capital budget in terms of planning and that's a needs assessment operational plan, functional program, schematic design, and we go as far to getting a class C cost estimate. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mahsi. Ms. Nokleby.
Thank you for that. I guess then my next question is, it's my understanding there's been some issues with the ground for the site in Inuvik. I'm just wondering if that's going to then drive up the costs for the planning for that project, or are we able to accommodate that in house? Thank you
Mahsi for that. Minister.
Yes. Mr. Heath, please.
Mr. Heath.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the overall planning budget in capital estimates is sufficient to do the planning for the Inuvik longterm care facility. We are piggyback off some studies happening with the hospital. There's geotechnical work going on there. We're doing that work in concert with this facility. And so basically any recommendations that end up addressing some of the foundations issues elsewhere in the community will be applied to this facility, and that's how we're able to accommodate. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Nokleby.
Thank you I just want to say I actually am really glad to hear that. When I was doing geotechnical work before, because the drill has to be mobilized into communities and that's Inuvik's likely they drive it in, but in other areas up in the Mackenzie Delta or Mackenzie Valley, you have to barge them in. So I just kudos to the department for trying to, like, you know, make use of drill time and engineers that have already been mobilized to sites. So I'd like to see more of that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm done.
Minister.
Thank you for the comment.
Ms. Nokleby.
Thank you I'm finished, Mr. Chair.
