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.