Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Infrastructure.
So the Office of the Auditor General in its audit of the Stanton P3 project recommended the GNWT publicly report costs related to the Legacy Hospital Building leasing arrangement and to provide updates to total project costs when there are significant changes over the 30-year term. Now, the GNWT has disagreed and declined to publicly report those costs.
Can the Minister explain who or what the government is protecting by refusing to publicly report these costs? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Yellowknife North. Minister of Finance -- or Infrastructure.
Either way, Mr. Speaker, on this one, thank you for the question. Mr. Speaker, this report from the auditor general, every single other recommendation the GNWT has accepted. It's singularly around the classification of the Liwego'ati Building as being whether a P3 or not a P3 that we continue to have this issue. If it is a commercial lease, we do not report any of our commercial leases publicly. They are proprietary information to the landlord. Because we have classified this one as a commercial lease, it is proprietary information, it is reported by constituency, by community, as every other commercial lease is. This one is no different. There's no matter of any -- then when people are being protected, Mr. Speaker, it's the same as on every other commercial lease. We don't report them publicly. They are not part of the P3 reporting. They are held separate. But on every other aspect of the audit, we were more than happy to accept the recommendations. And, quite frankly, we're already making the changes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the Minister's claiming this is a case just like any other commercial lease. Does the GNWT hold any other commercial leases where we actually own the building and we've leased it to someone and then subleased it back from them? Is there any other cases of any other building or any other commercial lease that works that way in the territory? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge this is a unique situation. It was also a unique opportunity, Mr. Speaker. It's not one that was -- any Member of this Cabinet was in government at the time. What we had is a building that we owned that needed to be remediated, and we needed to remediate it at significant costs. This is a large building, a medical building, and the remediation would be significant. So that was included as part of the leasing arrangement.
Subsequent to that -- and I think this is where there starts to be some challenges. And subsequent to that, it was identified that we would, in fact, need space for long-term care. And so instead, we already had the cost sharing or the agreement -- revenue sharing agreement in place. With that revenue sharing agreement in place, Mr. Speaker, we were able to go into the Liwego'ati Building, go back to the commercial party, negotiate a lease with them, with our revenue sharing agreement in place we got a better deal as a result of that, and that's the situation we find ourselves in. That's a fairly unique circumstance as compared to any other lease in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Final supplementary. Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the Minister has just claimed that subsequent to the lease, we realized -- or the government realized that it needed more space for health care services but, in fact, it was as early as 2014 that the government had recognized that more space was needed for health care services. Can the Minister explain why that was not taken into account when this lease agreement was first arranged with Ventura? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this, again -- more than happy to say if we want to admit wrongdoing, that looking back ten years ago we don't have all of the records that we should have in order to explain that decision. None of us were here. I wasn't here.
What I can say, Mr. Speaker, to the best of the knowledge today, at the time in 2014, the plan that health and social services was to build a new and standalone long-term care facility, and then when that project would have been ready to move forward closer, if I recall correctly, to the 2019, 2020 -- or rather 2020, the situation had changed, the markets had changed, commercial realities had changed, and costs had gone up significantly for new builds and at that time -- I believe it was at that time that the decision was made to, in fact, reutilize this building where we already a revenue sharing agreement rather than going and building new.
So, Mr. Speaker, if we want to now -- and, again, one of the recommendations was to keep better records. Agreed, and we'll do that going forward. But in this case, that's the history that brought us here. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Oral questions. Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this question is -- these questions are for the Minister of ECE.
Mr. Speaker, I've been speaking with daycare operators. The wage certification grid that the government has brought out is causing difficulties for operators in a time when we're trying to expand daycare spaces. Mr. Speaker, is this new grid something that's been imposed on us by the federal government, or is it our own program? Thank you.
Thank you, Member from Frame Lake. Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, the Canada-wide agreement with the GNWT solely dictates that we must have a wage grid, but it doesn't say where that wage grid starts and where it ends. That is solely dictated by our pocketbooks. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And thank you to the Minister for that clarification. So, Mr. Speaker, daycare operators are telling me that this new system is restrictive and preventing them from hiring staff and helping the department achieve their goal of creating new daycare spaces. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister commit to sit down with these operators and work with them and figure this out, find a solution that works for them, that works for the department, something that can help us move forward? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my last -- I know which early learning and childcare institution the Member is speaking with. My last conversation with the executive director of that institution, I did say any time you want to have a sit down I am more than happy. I can also inform the Member that there's been three separate meetings since last Friday with this particular childcare provider, and I believe there was even one as recently as today, Mr. Speaker. I'm always happy to sit down and have these conversations, but I will also say that we have to ensure that our program falls in line with the federal agreement and while we stipulate the minimum that people need to be paid, providers are more than welcome to exceed that. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. Final supplementary. Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'm glad the Minister highlighted that because that dovetails well with the question I was about to ask.
Mr. Speaker, operators are telling us that they can't charge fees for additional services like providing healthy meals, extracurricular programming, or even making up the gap between what the government is willing to give and what daycare operators need to be paying in order to keep staff. So, again, is that a rule being imposed on us by the feds or the GNWT, and can we change these things that are creating problems for operators?
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the Minister, as she's well aware, we are trying to increase spaces; we want our operators to be given the tools they need to increase spaces to expand. So can the Minister commit to working with them to change the things that need to be changed to solve these problems? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I too would like the same things as the Member. The stipulation of no additional fees being charged is in the Canada-wide agreement and any additional fees that are charged must be deducted by the primary fees that are being charged to the parents. So we are in a situation where we need to figure out how to create sustainability and stability within our own system but ensure that we are, at the end of the day, following that agreement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. Oral questions. Member from Range Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to follow up on questions raised by the Member for Yellowknife North on the Stanton renewal project.
The auditor general maintains that the leasing -- the decision to lease the Legacy Building, it's not good value for money. Plain English. It's in excess of $70 million that wasn't part of the initial project to a building we own. Does the Minister agree with the auditor general, and can she tell us today that this was not good value for money as a decision? Thank you.
Thank you, Member for Range Lake. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the auditor general, as I understand, was -- is looking at the two projects as one and our view continues to be that the two projects are not one. And so the way that we are looking at that value analysis continues to differ, Mr. Speaker. And we do now have a campus-based approach with health care with the two facilities operating side-by-side rather than a Stanton Territorial Hospital and what would have then been a separate building built somewhere else at some distance. So at this point, Mr. Speaker, we have two operating facilities and, again, looking at them as the two separate projects, it is our view that they are, indeed, a good value for money. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I guess I'm confused. This seems to be new information. Was there ever a plan that Liwego'ati would not be used or that Stanton Legacy would not be used as part of a health care campus? My understanding is there was always a component of that in the initial RFP that went out for the rebuild was to demo this building for other uses and that was -- so was there some other purpose intended for Stanton Legacy before it became the Liwego'ati Building? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, when the decision was made to lease it out and to have it remediated by that leaseholder, the intention was that the leaseholder could make whatever choices initially that they wanted about what they would do with that building. Likely office space, commercial, commercial space, but not bound necessarily to turn it back into any kind of health facility. That would, of course, require the health department to be planning to go back in there and initially that was not the plan. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Final supplementary. Member from Range Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I know for a fact that the clause or the arrangement with the P3 partner is very specific that the GNWT gets final say about what goes in there. We had jokes about, you know, it not being allowed to be a casino, for example. So the GNWT had a say over it. They could have made it clear that it needs to be health. But I'll say this: Can the Minister produce any evidence that this is actually saving money -- that this -- at the time, it is saving money competitively from leases? We've heard as much as 30 percent savings but there's no dollar figure. Can she produce a receipt? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, so there's the P3 partner who operates the Stanton Territorial Hospital and then there is a separate arrangement, commercial arrangement, with a leaseholder over the Liwego'ati Building. Again, two different entities that we are speaking about. And what I certainly can look again back to, and I believe was committed at the time, is that some further evidence can be provided, some further information can be provided with respect to the cost differentials. So specifically on the Liwego'ati Building, at that time it would have been -- at the time that the decision was made to lease back the room and the spaces that were being remediated, given the revenue sharing agreement that was in place, it was better value for dollar than to go out then and build a new building for the long-term care facility.
Mr. Speaker, there's -- again, we acknowledge that records back from 2014 and 2015 are not as complete as they should be, that that recordkeeping and that decision-making wasn't as good as it -- in terms of records, wasn't as good as it should be, and that is the situation we find ourselves in now. Not going to do that going forward, and we have a lot better checks and balances in place. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Oral questions. Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm full of compliments today; here's one to Aurora College.
I went to their website recently, and I don't know if it's in response to my earlier questions several months ago or in the sense they were doing it anyway and just decided to do it better, I like what they've done with the timelines and the progress tracker on the work being done for the polytech.
Mr. Speaker, that being said -- not a criticism, just an observation. Mr. Speaker, on its website, it points out that they have a lot of things outstanding even though it shows it looks like they should been done or should be in the progress of doing, such as recruitment of marketing communication strategy development, release a polytech university five-year academic plan, and the last one is establish a new legislation -- establish new legislation for polytechnic university.
Mr. Speaker, all of these things look like they should have been started. I'm asking is this initiative still live, or is there some concerns that we need to know that there are delays that need to come to light to the public? Thank you.
Thank you, Member from Yellowknife Centre. Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am sure Aurora College staff will be happy to hear the Member's compliments in regards to new legislation. That is certainly something that needs to be worked on in the life of this Assembly. And as the Member knows, Members have received an embargoed copy of the new mandate agreement which does have an implementation plan in it and that will be released publicly tomorrow -- later this week. Later this week. I don't -- yes, later this week. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, maybe to help the Minister, the old Minister used to say in the fullness of time, which if you were paying attention, that could mean any time. So needless to say, please don't use that further proof of what's happening.
Mr. Speaker, establishment of new legislation for a polytech university is the cornerstone of where it's going, defines it, and everything then comes out of it. In other words, its budgets, its plans, its mandate, etcetera, etcetera. It needs legislation to be real.
Mr. Speaker, when -- sorry, on the website, it says it will be released for completion obviously -- thank you, Mr. Speaker -- March 2025. Can the Minister update us on this initiative? Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that new legislation will not be released in March of 2025. It still needs -- it's GNWT legislation so it still needs to go through GNWT protocols. It will be tabled in the House here and then will go to standing committee as per our usual protocols. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. Final supplementary. Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And for the record, I appreciate your guidance. Mr. Speaker, my question is when can Members expect this draft legislation to come forward for review? Again, I can't stress enough, nothing can really happen without it hence we're waiting and want to ensure that the process is moving forward.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, when that legislation does take place, it creates much more separation between the government and Aurora College. I can assure the Member that work to lead us to that point is still happening. We are still going through the process of accreditation. We are still -- Aurora College is still working on its program development, is still working on its policies. They're still very much working towards all of these pieces that will lead to Polytechnic University Act, but there's a lot to be done between now and then, including accreditation, and other pieces that go along with it like their new college funding formula that will also be part of that. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. Oral questions. Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will continue having questions for the Minister of Infrastructure following up to my last set.
So given that the whole point of leasing the Legacy Hospital Building to Ventura was to transfer risk to Ventura, has the government been able to recover any of the costs related to the plumbing problems that were encountered just as the building was supposed to open last year? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Member from Yellowknife North. Minister of Infrastructure.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I don't have that specific information. I'd be happy to get that for the Member and provide it to the House. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that we are locked in to paying $78 million over 30 years to Ventura, can the Minister explain whether there is any benefit or value that Ventura is providing to the government over the next 30 years by holding the lease; what are we getting from that arrangement? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, one of the most significant things that we get from that, having entered into the revenue, again, sharing agreement with them, it did bring down the overall cost to us of having access to a building that has been fully renovated for use. And when I say renovated, I also want to say remediated. Again, the costs of remediating a building of this size and scale are not insignificant. That would have been a significant cost to the GNWT to do that, to bring it up to a level that would then be actually useable again from the state that it was in. So we are -- that was -- that is the single biggest asset -- or benefit that we are getting. And now as the sort of landlord, if you will, they do have an obligation to maintain the building to a standard. So that's another specialized service that they are providing as a major land -- a major rent -- landlord holder, that they brought it up to scale and are now having to support us, otherwise we'd have to bring on likely more public servants and more specialized care in order to maintain the building ourselves. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Final supplementary. Member from Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And it's my understanding that -- well, that -- I mean, the remediation work is done and the GNWT, in fact, had to pay for all of the renovations to get the building ready so I'm not sure what they're continuing to offer. But is the department investigating the potential and the possible risks and benefits of breaking that 30-year lease agreement with Ventura for the Legacy Hospital Building? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, I do think that's an important point for folks to understand that there was the remediation of the space, first of all, and there's an industry term for it that's escaping me, but essentially to have it into a shell position so that it could actually be then renovated. So that's where there's two parts to what's going on. And the -- the vanilla shell, I think is the term. To have it at a vanilla shell so that it could be turned into a useful space. Again, that's not an insignificant cost and that has now been parsed out over the course of the lease which, again, spreads that cost out over time rather than requiring a significant upfront amount.
And as for the second question within the third question, Mr. Speaker, it's not my understanding and not my recollection that we are doing any kind of investigation of breaking that lease. That's not generally the kind of contractual party that we want to be seen as a government and so, again, it's certainly not my understanding that there's any intent to do that this time. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister of Infrastructure. Oral questions. Member from Great Slave.
