Mr. Speaker, clearly, those are responsibilities of the federal government, but we share the concern that there are things like cumulative impact work that are identified and are not properly funded. There are other concerns that some of the boards aren’t adequately funded, as well. We’ll be looking at all those issues as we come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you again, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the Minister for those comments. Probably everybody agrees to the recommendation that we get some land use planning and land use frameworks underway. I want to compliment the Minister and this government for getting that started. Hopefully, we’ll see some results there.

I want to stress that to the extent we are in deficit here, that these regulatory programs are underfunded. While we seek devolution, we will be left with those deficits, because along with devolution and responsibility come all those deficits in funding. We need to get these gaps filled before that transfer happens.

I’d like to hear again what the Minister will do to ensure appropriate levels of funding so they can do their job and participants and communities can participate in the process as required under the legislation and as the federal government has committed in that legislation.

We will fund the programs we are directly responsible for to the best of our ability. As well, we’ve taken on new initiatives like the water strategy and the proposed land use framework that’s currently under development. Those are all being dealt with under our new strategic initiatives. We, of course, are committed to working with the federal government and all the other stakeholders to make sure we continue to work, once the election is over, for adequate funding for the regulatory regime that’s in place.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are in follow up to my Member’s statement and are directed to the Minister of Health and Social Services.

During the May–June session the Minister committed to following through on the development and finalization of the Stanton Master Development Plan and made it one of the priorities of the newly

appointed public administrator for Stanton. Today in the 2009–2010 Capital Estimates there is no master development plan. The Stanton Master Development Plan is completely missing.

I was wondering if the Minister could tell me why the Stanton Master Development Plan was eliminated and how she intends to move forward with finding some of the solutions required for Stanton.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to update the Members on this capital project.

In May, when the new public administrator of Stanton was appointed, one of the tasks he was given by me was to look at the master development plan and report back to me on it. What I found out when he came to me is that they are working on a $200 million plan for Stanton. Obviously, that was not a workable plan. I sent him back to work, and he and the deputy minister and the planners went back to work.

They came back in September with something that’s more manageable at $50 million. It will address all the seven areas we have asked them to address: emergency, ICU, diagnostic imaging, rehab, medical daycare, the aboriginal wellness and spirituality centre, as well as working out the issues surrounding the specialty services. We have a much more workable and affordable plan, and I’d be happy to share that information with the committee and the Members.

Secondly, the Member is aware that at the wishes of all the Members here, we are doing a different capital planning process, where only projects with a very specific plan are making it into the capital plan. That’s what’s reflected in this year’s budget. But with this new plan for Stanton we expect that it will make its way back into next year’s plan as we move forward.

I thank the Minister for that information. The $210 million sounds a little excessive — almost enough to build a new hospital — so I’m kind of glad we’re not going forward with that.

At the same time, Stanton is facing challenges, both physical and practical. To remove Stanton from the capital plan now seems a little short sighted. We need to move forward with Stanton. We need to move forward pretty quickly in order to ensure that we have the best facility. That will lead to things like good morale and whatnot in the facility itself. If not here, when can we expect it?

I’m happy to advise the Members that the new plans, which are a lot more affordable and workable, are being shared by the public administrator with the employees. It would involve short term measures of moving admin offices out of Stanton, which will create a lot more space. We are doing work in the emergency facility there to deal with confidentiality and privacy issues. Building of the dementia centre will address the crowdedness in extended care. And there’s new work being done in the consolidated clinic that will deal with primary care services.

There’s a lot in the mix that would impact the space needs of Stanton, and all these puzzles are working together to address the basic needs of Stanton in the most economical and efficient way.

Once again, that’s all great news. I’m actually quite happy to hear that. I’m curious as to when these things are going to start to happen. Are these things imminent, or are they in the 2009–2010 plan? When are we actually going to see some movement on some of these space issues? I’m glad to hear they’re happening. I think they need to be done, but can you give us a bit of a timeline?

As the Member is aware, the dementia building is being built. The consolidated clinic has gone to tender, and I believe the tender has been awarded. The administrative offices, with about 35 staff, are going to be moved out of Stanton into what’s now known as the old Extra Foods building as of December. There is other work being done to maximize the use of the building and to concentrate the renovation of the building on what’s most necessary and what has to be at that hospital, which is supposed to be an acute care facility.

We are looking at lots of other measures, and we are doing that in conjunction with the staff and management of the hospital. They’re on board with that. I’d be happy to give a full briefing on that to the Members if they would like.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the briefing. If we can get some idea of when that briefing would be, that would be great.

Planning is ready, and we have the presentation material. Any time the Members would like to have it, we’ll be happy to provide it.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is time we get the renovation on the Diamond Jenness Secondary School done. This school is long past its mid-life crises. We need to make this project happen so that the children of Hay River, the students

—

and a couple of them are right here in

the Chamber today — our young people, can have a healthy and safe learning environment and our teachers can have a healthy and safe workplace.

Mr. Speaker, in my Member’s statement I talked about how the capital plan has been pushed back. I’d like to ask the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment why the renovations for Diamond Jenness Secondary School were deferred, delayed, postponed.

Thank you, Ms. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. At this particular school, the Diamond Jenness, there’s been some work on the technical status evaluation report that was worked on in 2003, 2006 and 2008. There’s also an educational plan that is underway.

We do have our consultants going through the community tomorrow to meet with the DEA to go over the materials that need to be discussed on the educational plan. That report will be available to the community DEA and to the Member as well. Those are the works that have been undertaken with the capital projects we will be discussing here. We need to have a plan in place before we proceed with a major project.

We’ve had many years to study this problem and get a plan in place. The fact is that this government has a large capital budget going forward. A document was tabled yesterday in this House showing what the priorities of that capital budget are. I want to know why Hay River is not being treated as a priority.

I can remember at the candidate forum in Hay River reassuring the people that this was in the capital budget. How can we go back and face our community now? They ask why. Why is Hay River not getting the attention it needs?

To the subject of the volume or size of our capital budget, I have a couple of questions about some of the other educational facilities in here. Has a contract been awarded yet for the Samuel Hearne/Sir Alexander Mackenzie School project in Inuvik? Has the contract been awarded?

Yes, there is a contract that’s been awarded to work on the Inuvik school.

I’d like to know how much the contract that has been signed and awarded is for.

I can certainly share that with the Member. I don’t have it in front of me today. But it does break down on whether it will be the foundation, the actual structure of the building itself. There are many aspects of the project itself, so we need to have the breakdown of the actual cost of the capital project.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.