We'll go to capital acquisition plan, cap 13, Education, Culture and Employment. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we've spent a considerable amount of time over the last few days talking about the proposed student housing renovations in Fort Smith. We got from the Minister some reports on particularly the Green House and Brown House yesterday, which outlined the deficiencies and the expected cost to repair them. In both of those documents, it was in the area of $200,000 to $250,000 to deal with the basic requirements, which we assume would mean dealing with the fire marshal's deficiencies that were found. Members were told that it would cost in the area of $1.5 million to rehabilitate these properties. Given the size of them, I think we are hard pressed to understand why we would rehabilitate them when it looked like for very close to that price you could build new. In fact, that was what was wanted. So Members have had a considerable amount of discussion about this, and are of the feeling that if there are life safety issues with those buildings, that they should be dealt with. If that's going to take $200,000 then that's what we should be doing in order to make sure that we can live with the code rules that are set out and enforced. In this case, we're told they're going to be enforced by the fire marshal.

Members don't have any problem supporting expenditures to make sure the buildings are safe. But we are not convinced that these two buildings should be renovated, and I think that it's time that we took another look at it and maybe spend a little more time deciding whether or not they are needed in Fort Smith. Members are going to probably be more easily persuaded that replacement is the way to go, rather than rehabilitating them. I think what we should be considering instead, is forgetting about these projects that show rehabbing the Green House Apartments, take another look at that issue. If the department needs to come back to this House for supplementary funds to deal with the safety issues that have been identified by the fire marshal, then I think that Members will be inclined to support that. But based on the discussions we've had to date, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion to delete the $149,000 that is shown for the Green House Apartments for this, and encourage the department to come with a plan that demonstrates to us why we should be rehabilitating instead of looking at replacing, and having that sort of discussion with the Members.

The motion is being circulated. The motion is on the floor. The motion has been circulated. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Chairman, my riding consists of four communities, and for the most part post-secondary education, including upgrading, is done in Fort Smith. I've been to the community and I've seen the state that these facilities are in. I cannot agree with some of the information that has been circulated. I think to remove the Green House Apartments and also to remove any upgrades to the Brown House Apartments is going to leave the Fort Smith campus in severe shortage of accommodation at this point. I can't support this motion and I will not be supporting this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of things. I think that we've seen quite clearly that there are safety issues at both the Brown and Green housing. We've seen a copy of an e-mail to that effect, and I don't think that that's something that should be dealt with lightly. But it's quite clear, from the capital plan, that the department isn't prepared to deal with those fire marshal safety issues this year, and that's a concern for me. I think if there's anything that we need to be talking about, it's dealing with those issues right now to make sure that those students are in a safe environment.

So I think our first step, whether it's $200,000 or $250,000 per housing unit -- I'm not sure what it is, we haven't seen a list of those safety concerns detailed -- I think they need to be taken care of now. I would certainly support and urge the department to come back with a supp for that money to deal with that this year, not wait. I mean if these are real concerns, there's no point in putting them off until something happens in the future. I don't know if this $149,000 is set to do that in the Green House but not the Brown. It's a concern for me.

The other issue, I think that is critical here, is the fact that we're prepared to spend $1.3 million to renovate some seriously old buildings, when the numbers that the government has given us to replace would be $1.7 million. That seems so close to me that I don't understand why we wouldn't build new. We're going to tear these things down to the foundations and to the structures, and I think in those reports it indicates we haven't even opened up walls. When we talk about $1.3 million for renovation, we haven't opened a wall yet to find asbestos or God knows what else. So I think that's a $1.3 million moving target. If we know the cost to build new would be in the $1.7 area, I think we're much safer to talk about building new. It doesn't make any sense to be renovating.

So my suggestion would be to come back for supplementary funds to deal with the safety issues now and forget about renovating these things. Let's see a plan to replace them in future years. But they should be up against all the other capital projects in Education and should have to compete, but let's talk about replacing not repainting and adding a little bit more insulation to some buildings that are 40 or 60 or something years old. I'll be supporting the reduction of this $149,000, because I'm not sure exactly what this is going to do. But I would urge the department to come back for supplementary funds to deal with the safety concerns in these two buildings this year, not in three or five years or sometime when it seems that that's really the furthest date that we can possibly stand before we have a critical situation. So I will be supporting the reduction of $149,000.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as we've heard, this has taken up quite an amount of time here in committee under the review of Education, Culture and Employment. The Minister provided us with information regarding this as the first concerns were raised. I raised again my concerns following reading that information, seeing that there was so much emphasis placed on what the fire marshal would do with these units if nothing were done. Under the threat of no funding coming forward, it seemed that they would possibly close these. But we haven't seen a fire marshal's order. We've seen an e-mail that talks about the possibilities that may be done. When we look at our plan again and laying it out, the facilities that are in the books, the 20-year needs assessment down to the five-year capital plan, and this one jumping the queue so to speak regarding these concerns and, again, with the fire marshal's order seem to be the main point of contention. I feel that with the information provided, committee is suggesting a different line here. One is we don't support, and I can't support putting...If you look at the five-year plan, this year it's scheduled for $149,000, but in total it will be $1.5 million. As we've seen, the figures in our government contracts are rarely right on, so that will probably go up by $100,000 or so. Lord knows, as my colleague, Mr. Bell, has stated. When you look at the reports, Mr. Chairman, that were given to us, in the conclusion of the Green House it talks about construction costs for minimal repairs being $200,000. Total refurbished construction costs $1.3 million, and replacement construction costs of $1.7 million.

I have to agree with my colleagues on this motion. I think the department should go back to the drawing board and look at replacing the units, not refurbishing. If we have to come up with $1.7 million for new, then we'll get a 40-year lifespan instead of spending $1.3 million or $1.5 million and getting 15 years more out of it. It doesn't seem to make sense that we're willing to do that. Maybe they can come back. I'm sure the department can find, within its budget, interim money to deal with the fire issues with the facility for the upcoming year. If they're that bad and need to be done, then they should proceed with those; or, if need be, come through with a supp. I recall last year we passed the budget and within three weeks or a month we had another supp anyway, so let's just follow the same course. We're getting used to it.

But on this funding I have a concern that if we accept this funding as it is, then we accept the plan for refurbishing. I don't think that's what we should be doing. That's not prudent fiscal management. If we're going to rebuild an existing place for $200,000 less than we can get a new place, that doesn't make sense, and it will have a shorter lifespan on top of that. So I think that just doesn't fit, Mr. Chairman, with what I think we should be doing.

I'll support the motion, based on urging the department to go back to the drawing board, deal with the fire issues, the office of the fire marshal's concerns, and go back to the drawing board to replace these units and come back to deal with those issues. I could support that on that initiative. That's why I would support this motion. I'm concerned if we put this one ahead, we buy into the whole plan of refurbishing, it doesn't make prudent financial sense as I see it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I sit on the Social Programs committee, so we have had an opportunity to consider the main estimates and the capital priorities of this government and the capital priorities of the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I agree with my colleagues here, that when we are considering how to make the best use of our limited capital resources, that we need to think about the long term and we need to think about the best value for that money possible. I agree that if there are fire marshal requirements for renovations, that we cannot hesitate on those, that those need to be acted on and we need to do those.

I'm just really repeating what my colleagues have said, and suffice it to say that I'll be supporting the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we have pointed out that we do have a difficulty in Fort Smith in terms of older units that are there. Without replacement and renovations, we could hit a particularly critical problem based on the occupancy that is required for the community. This was the process that was used to identify the units that needed to be upgraded and units that need to be replaced.

As Mr. Devitt explained yesterday, if the potential cost is still there with this certain amount then new construction will be considered. Mr. Chair, also with respect to the immediate safety concerns, we are working with Public Works and Services to address the immediate ones, and no doubt we'll be able to correct those that are identified fairly quickly.

So, Mr. Chair, I can't support this particular motion. I feel that a lot of work has gone into identifying the need in the community, and in my mind it is very warranted. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a short comment for the record. I will be supporting this motion. I have indicated in previous debates that it's not a sound capital item, from my point of view. In looking at the needs of capital investment within the college itself, then I also raise the question about where are our priorities in terms of the way we spend money for grade school capital needs versus student housing for adults. I think it should be made clear that we understand that those adults who go to school in Fort Smith are in need of housing as well, but we have to calculate that with the needs in Yellowknife as well as Inuvik.

Another thing that I think should be made very clear is that this motion makes it clear that we understand the need for capital investments to address fire codes and health codes and so on. But we have to be more prudent about the way we spend the long-term and the bigger renovation costs. So I just want to put that on the record so that I show the reason for my vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. To the motion.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

---Applause

We're on capital acquisition, Education, Culture and Employment, advanced education and careers, total advanced education and careers, revised number, $3.744 million.