Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a question on the $19,000 return on maintenance costs for infrastructure assets. How many assets are we talking about with the maintenance cost for two communities of $19,000?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amount that is being returned is the amount that we would have transferred over to the community. I guess it would be those buildings that they had agreed to do maintenance for us. This is the Public Works side of the agreement. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think the Minister really answered my question. I know it's Public Works buildings. We are looking at two communities, roughly $9,500 for maintenance funding for Public Works buildings. I can understand why they don't want this work. I can understand why they don't even want the funding to carry out this work because there is probably just not enough. How many buildings does this include? Are there any schools involved or just maintenance garages or units or what? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should correct myself on this one. Public Works set up things through the other departments because Public Works used to do the maintenance. It was transferred over to the communities. In the case of Fort Resolution, there were six buildings and they varied from a warehouse where the maintenance was about $1,800; an office warehouse was $11,500; the forestry dock was $2,000; wildlife warehouse was $1,900. So there were the four buildings that were being maintained through an agreement. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Asset management, total department, not previously authorized, negative $19,000.

On to page 10, Health and Social Services, operations expenditures, health services programs, not previously authorized, $1.494 million. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will stop here. I just would like to know who did the budgeting for the new hospital in Inuvik in terms of what it would cost for utilities and maintenance. Was it an outside firm or was it Public Works? Someone really dropped the ball on this to miss this budget by what amounts to $1 million a year. If

it's one of our employees, they should be looking for a new job, Mr. Chairman.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, that amount was worked on by a number of groups. One would be the Department of Public Works and Services, one would be through Health and Social Services and, as well, the health board. I believe there was a consultant involved in working with the health board on the design, what it would take to operate and so on. There were a number of groups that were involved in this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the Minister of Public Works has sent a message to the employees who were involved and the contractor who was involved. This is completely unacceptable, Mr. Chairman, that they could miss a budget by double. It's completely double what the original budgeted estimate was. If the letters haven't been sent, I don't know what the corrective action is or how you take steps to make sure this doesn't happen again, but it's completely ridiculous. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It has been noted and we will be sending the messages. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to bring attention to this. It's an astonishing amount of money; $1.84 million. It's called forced growth for utility and maintenance costs for a brand-new building. It's $1.8 million for one building. This is amazing that something as complex and sophisticated as a brand-new hospital and there aren't many kinds of buildings, Mr. Chairman, that are that advanced and complicated that this amount of money to run the place can slip through the cracks. Is there no fallback for this government in terms of the consulting or the planning or the budgeting that we could go back to some company or somebody involved in this to say a $1.8 million boo-boo? I don't find it acceptable that the Minister can say the concerns have been noted and will be passed on. This is $1.8 million more than we thought this hospital was going to cost every year. There has to be more accountability accepted, Mr. Chairman, than it has been noted and it's been passed on. Is there nobody that we can go back to to get some relief or somebody to share this pain? This is a big ouch, even though it is a hospital. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amount in the document covers two years. The first year shortfall is the 2003-04 fiscal year and that's about $919,000. That's made up by the increase in heating fuel costs as well as power and a small amount for maintenance. The heating fuel cost increased substantially, the volume is almost 80 percent of what was existing. So there is a substantial jump. For recourse, for anybody else outside, I am informed that we have very little room for recourse. As to when the building was initially designed, estimates were put in place and then construction and coming into a full year of operation. So, unfortunately, we are faced with this and dealing with it. The first amount of $919,000 makes up the shortfall for 2003-04. The remainder of $925,000 would make up the shortfall that we would find in this year of 2004-05. At that point, it would go into the budget on an ongoing basis, so we shouldn't see any more of this nature. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.