Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Public Works and Services is the department that's been in contact and dealing with the fire marshal's office. The letter that was sent to one of our senior project managers was dated in January 2006. The fire marshal's office has been involved for some time before that. It is an unfortunate situation where we are in the position we are. Ultimately, much work has been done, so the department has been dealing with this. It's not like this is parachuted in and going to take over other projects. On an annual basis every department can put projects on the planning table, so to speak, and they would have to justify why their project would make the cut for that year and show up in the business plans as a potential approved project. Once that gets the first nod at business plans, we would then draft the draft main estimates including that for final vote of the Assembly. So each department would do its work based on the criteria that's been set out in the capital planning process. A number of factors would be involved. There are five items, I don't have them up front. We've presented that to committee a number of years ago on the capital plan process, and the department can bring forward their plan and it would compete with others. If it ranks as high through the ranking system and makes it right through the process to the business plans, ultimately it would be Members of this House that would direct that if it, in fact, it is a new place or a new renovation. Right now the department has opted with the recommendation that it be a replacement.

Yes, as I laid out yesterday, the first indication and involvement with the fire marshal's office was dated back in 2002 and there's been a number of correspondence, meetings since then. Ultimately we've been given the letter saying here's what you have to do, here's the timeline you have to meet. We've been working with the client department trying to complete this process. Unfortunately we missed the boat on the last capital planning exercise and are now in a position where we have to come forward in this manner through a supplementary appropriation to get the first part of this money to keep the facility open. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate the Minister's very patient explanation of all this stuff, but you know, he's pointed out one of the obvious stages in here, gaps, that for whatever reason or cause the routine step of getting this into the business plan was missed. One of the steps that I'm familiar with and very comfortable with when it comes to getting things into the business plan is bringing an issue or problem or situation before standing committee. I sit on the Standing Committee on Social Programs, which has oversight responsibility for ECE. I do not recall in the four or five years that I've been on that committee, Mr. Chairman, any mention whatsoever of a situation in Fort Simpson where the Deh Cho Hall is going to require some capital help. Nothing. Reminiscent, Mr. Chairman, of a certain situation regarding a treatment centre here in Yellowknife where the decision was made way off page without the consultation of the standing committee in what was going on. These are the kinds of things that I need on my side, my colleagues need in order for us to make good decisions, responsible decisions of which we're going to be held to account for taxpayers' money. That's what's missing here.

The question that I want to put to the Minister or the client department is to confirm or correct me in advising of whether or not any item was ever brought before Standing Committee on Social Programs regarding Deh Cho Hall.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe that at any time the standing committee was informed that we might be having to look at replacing this building. Mr. Chairman, there were extensive consultations with the MLA for the region over the past two years. The village council has been involved in the consultations, the band has been involved in the consultations, and unfortunately it appears that in the act of maintaining good consultation with the community, the step of informing the committee that this was an impending issue was overlooked.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Braden.

Yes, okay, I've got the information or the confirmation that I was seeking here and that is that a significant part in the accountability process that we need to have on our side of the House was missed. That reason alone will justify my support of the upcoming motion to delete this item, Mr. Chairman. As I've said in the context of this debate before, I think just about everybody on this side has added their voice to we do not want to deny Fort Simpson a valuable part of their community infrastructure, but we've got to be able to hold the government to account on the way decisions are made. That's the issue before us today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand where committee members are feeling those. I've mentioned this quite a number of times about the planning, the process, where we find ourselves now, and as I said earlier, ultimately it's this House that will direct how things are going and the final accountability happens here on the floor. So the Member has mentioned the motion as well as another Member mentioned she's prepared to move the motion, so I suggest that if that's the consensus, then let's get on with the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Roland. Next I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn't be adverse to going straight into the motion because I am going to support the motion to delete this item for a variety of reasons. I think other Members here today and yesterday have discussed how it is that we've arrived here at the 11th hour having to spend $3.5 million on a building that might have a life expectancy of two to four more years. It's a complete, in my mind, waste of money without a plan to address the office requirement needs in Fort Simpson. It doesn't sound like the Minister has a plan to do that. There's been a lot of talk about, well, it's not in the capital plan. Ultimately, whose responsibility is it that it's not in the capital plan? That's what I was trying to get at yesterday. I believe ultimately somebody's responsible and the Minister stated himself that consultation took place with the Member from there, the village, but one key important ingredient, Mr. Chairman, was there was never any consultation with the people who approve the spending in this government, and that's us. All of us. Here we are at the 11th hour with a gun to our head, like I said yesterday, and it's not fair, it's not appropriate and I will certainly be supporting the motion.

Also, while I've got the floor, I wanted to mention to the Minister I'm not sure where he got all the information on the numbers at the Deh Cho Hall, but, Mr. Minister, in my calculations you have about 8,700 square feet unaccounted for in your numbers if you do the math, and I challenge you to go back and look at the numbers. You're missing about 8,700 square feet of space according to your numbers and I'm not just making that up. With that, Mr. Chairman, I think we're covering a lot of ground we covered yesterday and I think that's important, but let's get on with the motion and let's have this out. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As to the numbers, the paper that's been handed out to Members now, the total space used now is 4,488 square metres. That includes government and non-government. The portion of the government usage is split out and, as I read out earlier, the amount of square footage that are occupied by GNWT users and then the square footage by non-GNWT users. There are sections of the building that was involved in a fire in the past and sections of that building have been not used since then, and it's not our intent to renovate that portion of the building or to do the repairs to that. As well, we stated for a new facility we're targeting $10 million and that would be just for the GNWT users with that. So that's the last comment I would have on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've mentioned this numerous times before. Again, I don't understand if you have a requirement for office space in Fort Simpson why we don't go to tender and try to get the office space that we need built. Again, I mean this is the first time I'm seeing any of this information as it comes through a supplementary appropriation and it's not right, Mr. Chairman. I just want to mention that again. I think it's not fair to put Regular Members in this position that we're in today. It's not fair to the residents of Fort Simpson either and I want to mention that as well. Thank you

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think we can find in the past where we have, through this process, established capital programs whether it be renovation or replacement because of timelines and urgency if we had a failure in a facility would come through this process. Why can't we go for office space leases at this point? We would need the authority of this House. We can't just go out for space at this time for a lease. Right now we're in an owned facility and to change that direction, again, the department would have to bring it forward and get that approval through the process we have in place. So I mean I can't add any more further to this discussion, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think the question begs to be asked, well, why didn't we go to tender three years ago or four years ago when we knew this was the case? If you want the approval of this Assembly to do that, I'm looking down the row here and across the way and I'm sure the will would be there. If there's a need in Fort Simpson for office space, the desire and the will amongst the Members here to get that done would be there, but it just wasn't done, Mr. Chairman. I think that's the problem. It should have went to tender years ago, not arrive here on the floor of the House today in the state that it's in and I think that's the key point in this. I think the Minister still has an opportunity to go to tender. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, ultimately we need to find space. Spaces where we're occupied at this time we would lose the opportunity to use that space. Going out for a tender at this time we still wouldn't have a building in place for more than a year to complete what's required. I suggest we'd be lucky to get it completed and people moved in in two years if we were to pull something off the shelf and just say we need so much square footage office space. There is some office space, there's a learning centre. So there's different types of spaces here that are required, but ultimately that could be the final decision as we proceed down here. But what we find ourselves now is to make sure we have existing space available for those staff that are on the ground today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next I have Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Just this whole issue is we have an opportunity to go over it again at length and we went over it yesterday and as a MLA for Nahendeh that represents Fort Simpson and the issue where this building stands is that I have to tell committee again is, it's not something that's been thrown on the books on this supp here two weeks ago, it's something that I've been working with the community, all levels of the community. Everyone is concerned about the building and the infrastructure and what to do with it

and what's the best way we could plan around it. A lot of what kept getting put off for different reasons, changes in administration, changes in mayorships and everybody has got to be brought up to speed again. It's no surprise that it's come to supp level and they've let us throw in the fire marshal's report. That's something that's been there for some time, too. As to why it wasn't addressed before, I can't answer that, but I cannot support the solution that the government is offering here. I mean I cannot support the motion committee members are putting forward to do away with the solution that the government is offering. I appreciate the Members' concerns about leasing and buying new buildings and that will be addressed in due time, but the solution now is what are we going to do with that building and this is the only solution there is, is to retrofit it and continue with the life of that building.

As for knowing every single issue in every Members' riding, that takes a super Herculean effort. It would be a super human feat to do that and I don't blame you if this is the first time you saw it or heard about it. Like, I brought you guys to Simpson and I showed you the building, but to know every single issue in everybody's riding is impossible. I would just like to do with that and to ask the Minister as well I guess, Mr. Chair, leasing building spaces and purchasing new and the retrofit to the building, are all those questions that had been addressed over the past three years? Thank you.