Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to start off saying how impressed I was with Public Works and Services, Mr. Aumond and his staff, in getting us to this stage. I think they are to be thanked for the work they’ve done.

For a lot of the reasons that have already been discussed by my colleagues here today, there are some challenges whenever you look at changing the way you do things. I think there will be some growing pains as we go through this new process.

However, I do believe and am of the opinion that we will get better tendering results and we’ll reduce the amount of carry-overs that we have from year to year. I think those are two primary objectives that we need to keep in mind.

I also agree that the evaluation that other Members have talked about is important. It’s an important piece of the puzzle as we move forward. We should always be trying to do things better.

I’m a big fan of the standardized design from community to community. I think oftentimes things get off the rails. We go with Cadillac versions; we go with overspec’d buildings; we go with whatever the list of people we talk to wants in a building. It’s nice if you have you money, but I think in today’s day and age and with the cost of construction in the Northwest Territories, standardized designs…. Some people might not like it, but I think the utility of the buildings that we build and the designs that we use should be standardized. We should get more for the capital dollars that we have. Again, I’m very supportive of standardized designs.

Just a couple of observations. I agree with some of the comments, too, about the unbalanced capital dollars in various ridings. Specifically, I’ll point to a few ridings, Nunakput for one. Mackenzie Delta and Tu Nedhe are scarce in capital dollars over the next four years, whereas ridings in Inuvik, Fort Smith and, to a lesser extent, Yellowknife are receiving the bulk of the capital dollars. I’m very grateful, believe me, that a project like St. Joseph school is off the ground and being done. That was a very

necessary move by the government to get that renovation program going, and I’m very thankful for that. I’m also thankful for the movement on the Kam Lake bypass road. Those are two issues that I’ve been bringing to the table and fighting for.

I do understand and appreciate where some of my colleagues are coming from when there isn’t a balance on capital spending in the territory. I think going forward we need to try to ensure that we get a balance on that capital spending so that all communities can share equally in what dollars we do have. There are competing priorities and demands in every one of our communities that we represent, so looking at that would be a good start.

I always wondered how a school in Inuvik could cost us $120 million. We just built one in Tulita that was $24

million. The retrofit that’s happening

currently at St. Joseph’s is a major retrofit; it’s about $32 million. Why is a school costing us that much money? I don’t understand how it started off at $84 million and then went to $90 million and now is over $110

million, and even earlier today the

Minister didn’t know how much it cost. We really need to get a handle on it. The school needs to get built in Inuvik, but can somebody explain to me why it costs $120 million to build a school there?

Again, I think the issue that Mrs. Groenewegen brought up about consulting people in the construction industry is a good one. I think we have been waiting for a meeting. We’re looking forward to getting together with those folks in the construction industry, the architects, the engineers, anybody that has any insight into how the government operates and gets capital projects started and built in the territory. Any feedback we can get from people, we’re willing to take.

I know Public Works and Services, like I said, has done a yeoman’s job in getting us to this stage. It’s going to be a process that’s different to people, but I think it’s one that is workable and one I’m willing to support for the time being. I look forward to an evaluation sometime down the road, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the Member’s comments about the process. To try to address some of the issues that we’ve now talked about, I would just like, for the record, to note, if I could — it’ll take me about 30 seconds — that the Deh Cho, between 2009–2010 and up to 2011–2012, will be getting, according to this, $20.806 million; Hay River riding, $74.320 million; Inuvik Twin Lakes, $138.225 million; Mackenzie Delta, $2.745 million; Monfwi, $7.295 million; Nahendeh, $10.3 million; Nunakput, $12.360 million; Sahtu, $49.976 million; Thebacha,

$28.610 million; Tu Nedhe, $7.365 million; Yellowknife, $145.966 million.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Next on the list is Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t use a lot of time, but what I want to do is cite timing and process. First on the timing. I really like the timing. One of the complaints I generally hear and can obviously see is that timing is a problem. It’s been cited before, but I think it’s important to put it on the record from my perspective. When we approve the capital budgets at the end of March, it doesn’t get ignited into the realm of reality until April, May, June. Tenders come in; projects don’t start until the fall — those types of problems.

Now, that’s obviously not every project. We know that. But the reality is that timing becomes a significant issue in our very short construction season — our season when we have to send things up by a barge, our trucking season. If you live in one of those communities in Nunakput riding, you need to get that big barge all the way around. You know there are a lot of facilitative problems for planning. So, on timing, I’m really pleased with this idea of moving it forward. It’s something I sincerely support, and I want to thank Public Works in the effort that they have done to collaborate on this.

Some of the best work I’ve seen lately was one of the briefings we had a little while ago about Public Works understanding the tough challenges of delivering things on time, on budget and facilitating that. To me this sort of dovetails nicely into realizing that, yes, we have a problem, and now we are finding solutions for it. So my compliments go to the department and the team that worked on this. I know it wasn’t just one individual; it’s a team.

As far as the product, we now have a capital plan for our estimates that…. I think we’re given it as a lump sum. My first inclination would be to say: is transparency being served? To be honest, I think the government was being fleeced before. It didn’t take much of an effort to say, “Well, jeez, the government is looking for a water truck. How much do they have budgeted? Oh, it’s $180,000, so I better bid $170,000,” and keep on maximizing their bids every single time, in my view, and taking advantage of that. To my mind, that leads to project overruns; that leads to capital projects. When an architect sees that a school is worth $40 million, they design it exactly at $40 million, and of course there are cost overruns.

I think by subtracting those numbers again, although I normally fear transparency being lost, the sum totals will be all rolled together, and each line item will be delivered as sort of a product bunch. I’m very pleased by this approach, because we take doing the tough work out of a competitive

bid process. We take away the low lying fruit from those people who would be bidding on this by us doing the work for them. I’m hoping that in time we’ll start to get more competitive bids, because people actually have to earn and work a little harder for them.

I won’t cite an example, because I don’t want to narrow it down, and I don’t want to put a spotlight on it, but I am aware of an example where the number wasn’t necessarily that public, and there was a competitive process that shone through and gave us an excellent price and certainly will deliver a quality product. To me, in my mind, without the business community, whether it’s people who build and deliver water trucks or those people who design schools or hospitals or whatever, if we are not telling them how much money we’re willing to spend, that makes them sort of sharpen their pencils. They’re going to put in a proposal for the best dollars that they think we can accept. Certainly, that will work in the long haul.

Mr. Chairman, I have one question — I certainly hope it wasn’t asked already — for the Minister at this time. We are on the threshold of a new process that I think will deliver better bids in the long haul, which will deliver better accountability on our fiscal numbers over the long haul. Is there any strategy to create a check and balance system so that maybe in one year or two years there’ll be a review of how our competitive process has worked since we’ve taken out every single line item dollar and sort of bunched it up as one bottom line dollar for each individual department? Will they do a bit of a review to find out if it’s working with this method, that we’ve created a better competitive environment from the territorial perspective?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.

Mr. Chairman, first I’d just like to acknowledge the Member raising this concern about too much information on specific contracts that skewed the tendering competitive bid process. We’ve attempted to address that.

In terms of the evaluation process, as I’ve indicated — it’s been raised by yourself, Mr. Chair, and a number of your colleagues, including Mr. Hawkins — we will come forward in the final analysis, as we finalize the process, with that component built in.

I just want to again say that too much information in the competitive process, by us giving it away, is like telling everybody what to bid. I just want to say it’s an issue near and dear to my heart, to show that we’re working as hard as we can to get the best prices for products. I cannot emphasize enough to the folks from Finance, obviously, from Public Works and everybody else who put this package together that it’s a good

product, and I think it will serve us all very well going forward. I’m extremely thankful that the Minister, as well as many other government staff, heard the calls of people like myself and other Members — a feeling that we need to deliver a better product. So I’m very thankful on this example.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I didn’t hear a question, so I’ll move along to the next person on the list. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I’m glad to be reviewing the capital estimates of 2009–2010. As we had deliberated on the document and the different challenges, I, of course, have a regional perspective, more particularly from my riding. Roads and highways and our winter roads are of prime importance. There’s not a day that goes by that we’re not affected by the roads and the ability to travel on the roads. Particularly this spring, for instance, on Highway No. 7 there was actually a major failure in the base of that road, and they actually shut the highway down. That created a lot of excitement, if only because the highway is one of the ways that we get tourists up to our region, over to Fort Simpson. Those tourism dollars are important, just like anywhere else. As soon as the word got out that the highway had failed, word of mouth went far and wide.

It just goes to speak about the replacement of the roads or the complete rebuilding of the road that’s been on the books for some time, especially for Highway No. 7. I know that government in the last term had allocated a feast of dollars to it, and I’d like to see that level of expenditure continue. I’m glad to see it in here, but I’d also like to see, because it’s a major highway — in fact, it’s mentioned in many of our documents as part of a highway strategy — that a priority be included in reconstructing those portions of the highway. Like everywhere else, it’s about 30 or 40 years old. It will be prone to a lot more failures, and I don’t want to see that happen. I’d like to see the department concentrate on it.

To me it kind of looks like there may have even been a decrease in expenditures on Highway No. 7. Maybe the Minister can comment on that. I certainly don’t want to see that, especially not now. It’s no time to be reducing expenditures on that highway. The support for that highway has got to be at least the same or better than it was.

As well, in terms of our infrastructure I’ve noticed that in terms of our airport systems, one of the projects that we’ve been pushing for doesn’t even show up on the books anymore, Mr. Chair. That is, more particularly, the Trout Lake Airport relocation project. My colleague Mr. Abernethy has pointed it out as well. Sometimes projects fall off the books. Sometimes projects remain on the books, but they

remain in the capital plan. In this case, this particular project fell off the books as opposed to remaining on the capital plan. I’ve always maintained that it takes a lot of hard work just to get projects on the books, and to have it just fall off from one sitting to the next, without explanation or without even notifying me as the MLA, is kind of odd. I’d certainly like a good explanation of that.

At the same time, we’re reviewing our documents here. If the priority is not there for that project, but it should at least appear on the capital plans for future years and show up in that, then it would be very important to have that included. We do that in many different areas, many different regions. We take one project and say: okay; we can’t do it this year, but in future years we’ll do it. It remains on the books and highlighted, especially in documents such as this. At the bare minimum, Mr. Chair, that’s something I would be seeking: put it on the books; keep it on the books.

You know, I understand the many different priorities and initiatives that government has and the limited resources, but at the same time, we’ve got to strive. Future changes to the aviation guidelines and regulations impact the Trout Lake community as well. Just by not addressing those concerns…. A lot of it, of course, is haste, you know. Everybody knows in the whole transportation system that when they built that airport, it was actually part of the road, and to save costs they just built it on there. I think people and engineers from that industry kind of…. They had indicated that that’s not the best choice for alignment, and that’s the real issue here. Once you align it to prevailing winds, then you get safe transportation infrastructure. That was all Trout Lake and the aviation industry is looking forward to with the move to the building of this relocation project.

Anyway, these are arguments they use — and many, many more — in order to get this project on the books. To have it not on the books anymore is kind of like: what has happened to it? Does it mean it’s dead? But for me, I’d like to see it on the books in other years, in future years. If that’s the route we have to take, then I think that’s the route we should take, Mr. Chair.

Otherwise, I’m well aware of our capital infrastructure planning and guidelines. I think that we are on the right track with this dialogue that we’re having, this communication, as well as outside of this House and in the committee system. It goes a long way to re-evaluating what projects are important.

That goes the same for just dealing with the new issue of some renovations, as well, for the Fort Simpson hospital. There are some renovations planned. They’re off the books now, and we’re not too sure what’s going on with it. It doesn’t mean

that it’s dead; it doesn’t mean that it’s planned for other years. We don’t even see it on the books anymore. Again, that leads to a question. For us it’s still a priority. We’d like to get those projects done. We’d certainly like to see it mentioned in documentation that it’s still a priority. It still is a priority for our people, for our leadership and for our community.

So with that, Mr. Chair, I know that the Minister has been given the opportunity to respond to other Members, and I’d certainly like to hear his responses to my concerns. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Highway No. 7 is on the books for the next four years — $10.6 million, roughly $2 million a year. That funding is now coming out of strategic initiatives.

The Trout Lake Airport extension was removed as one of the choices made because of the physical challenges, which we’ve tried to explain to committee. We are continuing to look for funding so we get it back on the plan. We know the need is still there, and it will make its way back. At this point, though, we are pursuing funding.

I don’t have any information before me on the renovations for the health centre, but by the time we come to Health, we’ll have that information.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Next on my list is Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I agree with the Member about the need.... I think it has all been identified, the issue of deferred maintenance both for buildings and equipment and the cost that there is built up if we don’t do it right. As the Member indicated, the 20 year needs assessment will be reviewed and revamped on an ongoing basis as some projects follow up and get built and other ones come on.

Just for the record I would like to note that the money going to communities is the $28 million from the capital formula that is being proposed and another $6.1 million under the Building Canada fund, $14.6 million under the gas tax for a total this year of $48.7 million going to be allocated to communities on that base plus formula. In the case of the Member for Tu Nedhe, that will give the Fort Resolution community $1.2 million and Lutselk’e $1.1 million. So it gives them funds that they never had and an opportunity to do some planning with the recognition that they will get money.

The Member and I have talked about this as well, and I have referenced it in my comments. As we come forward with the O&M budget, the issue of funding that we are going to bring forward, proposed and targeted for alternate energy projects, is going to be an important piece. Clearly, one of the items that as the government we are interested in working with the Legislature on is the whole issue of mini hydro. It is our hope that when the budget is approved, we will then have the resources to, in a very concrete, meaningful way, approach some of those projects with resources to advance them significantly.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Next on my list is Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to empathize with some of my colleagues’ comments as they look for specific projects, at least in the longer term plans. I know this is general comments, but I have to say I’m still looking for the Dettah road reconstruction. I’m sure it’s there somewhere.

I do also, as many of us do, appreciate this new approach, which is an attempt to come up with appropriately designed infrastructure that will meet the needs of our residents and also the size of our pocketbook. We have a clear and dramatic pattern of annual increases in the cost of things and annual increases in the size of the carry-over. I think there is hope that this new approach will establish parameters that ensure we get the best value for our money and guard against these sorts of cost overruns and carry-overs. Basically, this is an attempt to get a grip on reality and to respond, and I am very supportive of that.

The process is also beginning to recognize the importance of identifying operations and

maintenance costs associated with facilities. I think we probably should go beyond that in some cases. Increasingly in jurisdictions around the world, with building infrastructure and other infrastructure, it’s being required and designed to generate the energy it will use and more. They will contribute energy to the grid, part of the distributed energy system. The latest technologies are out there. I think we’re moving in the right direction. We’ve got some good initiatives started. But we need to continue to learn about where the progressive thinking is on this and what the real opportunities are for getting ahead of this sort of thing. These costs are not going to go down, and we still have other opportunities that we can implement here.

I’m pleased to see that a value analysis on each major project will be done to provide some measure of accountability to ensure projects have met the conditions of their approval. This is an important tool for management and oversight and could be useful in my next concern, which we have heard about already, and that’s recognizing that this is a new process. It is important that we establish a way to evaluate this new approach, its capital planning, and to build that into the implementation plan. Certainly, now is the time, rather than later, to determine the key needs and areas for evaluation and to identify the date for an objective assessment. There is somewhat of a record of us undertaking an evaluation and belatedly finding out we haven’t collected the right information to be able to do a good evaluation of the processes.

This type of focused evaluation will help to identify gaps in the process, incorporate lessons learned and ensure we are meeting the intended outcomes established by the Ministerial Subcommittee for Infrastructure. I’m thinking quantitatively in some respects. I would like to see this plan. I know Members would be interested in reviewing this evaluation framework and having it become a bit of a formal process reported in the House, back to the Assembly here, in a way that the public can feel confidence in what our experience is. It brings an element of accountability that we should willingly assume.

On the environmental side, again with infrastructure, I would like to see a protocol developed that gives each infrastructure an objective environmental sustainability rating that will allow us to truly consider the environmental impacts and benefits of projects on a comparable basis. Again, this is just a progressive way at getting a grip on the realities that we are facing.

I have a general concern — and we’ve talked about this a little bit — about the level of expenditures on electronic data processing and records storage for our relatively modest population of 40 some thousand people. This seems to be like quicksand, basically. It’s time for us to step back and consider

how far and how fast we want to go down this road. I know there are some efficiencies; we need to be able to interact with the rest of the world. I recognize that the health records and systems interact, especially with Alberta, and have special needs. So I throw this comment out with those sorts of caveats on it.

But in the vast majority of cases these are not frontline delivery questions, and we have a lot of frontline delivery questions that are not getting the attention they need. We need a critical look here and a balance, recognizing that these are, to some extent, common to everybody. I suspect there is an opportunity here for some critical evaluation and perhaps some savings. I know we are also playing a little catch-up there in terms of storage and so on. So I want to leave it at that, and thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the Member noted, the Dettah road reconstruction is out there somewhere. It’s not readily apparent over the next number of years, but we appreciate the comment.

On the issue of a protocol for environmental sustainability ratings I’ll have to ask at the appropriate time for Mr. Aumond to reply to that. Clearly, the issues of energy efficiencies and the long term value we’re going to get for the money we are spending on the capital project are very important ones in this day and age. I might ask, Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, if Mr. Aumond might add a few comments on that, and I’ll come back to some of the Member’s other concerns.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Aumond.

Just quickly to conclude the issue of the evaluation process framework and the interest of the committee to see that work, we could commit to share that information and get feedback so that we can design the best evaluation framework possible. We will work with the folks from program review as well, since we want to be consistent as we do our evaluations across government.

The issue of IT costs is a difficult one. One of the biggest issues, of course, is the short life cycles that a lot of the equipment has. I’m one of the older Members here. I come from the days when they still used Telex; they didn’t have faxes initially. We definitely have invested significantly in all the new developments. It’s a discussion that is consistently challenging for us. We are very dependent on the systems we have for their efficiencies and the time and ability to respond in very fast turnaround fashion.

For example, with e-mail the expectation is that you can correspond with people, and you want an answer within minutes of sending the e-mail. You’re hoping that somebody has looked at it and you’re going to get some type of response, whereas in the old days you’d have to write an old fashioned letter and stick it in the mail.

There are costs to the speed and timeliness. That discussion, as the Member said, can be like quicksand. It’s an investment that has to be sustained and maintained.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Next on the list is Mr. Jacobson.