Mr. Chairman, as the Minister agreed, there was a real deal at the time that the community wanted an additional gym. It couldn’t get it, because they said they didn’t have the money. It wasn’t budgeted for. If you want the stage for the community, you will have to put in an extra $400,000. Thank God the New Deal came in. That was the real deal to give the community: some money.

The community as a whole between the three organizations, the three governments, said: we want to support education for children; the school needs a gymnasium, a proper gymnasium; we will pay for it; we will help with the education. Then the price started to increase in the school in terms of

the construction. Now it is over $20 million, and they are saying: why did we have to throw in the $400,000? I know the situation. That’s what they’re saying, and they are not satisfied, saying: we just likely threw away $400,000. I don’t know if it is true or not, Mr. Minister, but that is what the people are saying. It costs more in terms of the infrastructure.

Somebody got the real deal here, and it wasn’t the school in Tulita. They are asking why did they have $400,000 go to the gym, which cost extra money, millions of costs, to build the school? They appreciate it, but you know what the Minister has said: we got a real deal here. I don’t think so. I think somebody else got a real good deal on this school, but I want to say that this is what they are asking. And I want to ask again. I know that we’ll probably have some further discussions.

We are going to have this opportunity also for Fort Good Hope, and the people of Fort Good Hope appreciate it. The school is falling apart, literally falling apart, the same as with Tulita and many other schools in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Chair, I’ll probably make it more of a common statement. I do not really expect an answer from the Minister. That’s my sense on this, so I would like just to leave it at that. Fort Good Hope is looking forward to their process and looking forward to constructing their school in the hope that they have a good review this fall in terms of the school. But there is something that doesn’t fit really well with people in Tulita. They certainly appreciate the new school. They certainly appreciate coming up with $400,000, because it has put a lot of strain on the community. That’s the way this system works, and that’s the way it happened there. I’m just voicing my concerns from the people in Tulita.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. No real question there, but does Minister Miltenberger want to make a general response?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just suggest to the Member that his constituents should feel very proud that they’ve made such a significant contribution to a school that’s going to educate their children for decades to come. The community the size of Fort Good Hope now has a fine facility, which, he indicated, is over almost $20 million or thereabouts. It’s a significant investment, and it’s a shared investment now with both the community and the government. I think that’s something to be celebrated.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is the Minister referring to a 20 year capital plan or a 20 year needs assessment? I’m not sure if I’m talking about the same document here. I’m looking at the 20 year needs assessment, but I’m not sure if that’s the

document that’s been updated or if there’s actually a 20 year capital plan. Can I get a clarification on that, please?

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we’re referring to the same document. As well, I was saying, we’re going to lay out looking back ten years at how capital was portioned out across the North, and we’ll provide that information to Members.

Could the Minister advise me if there are any plans for renovation, retrofit or replacement of the schools in Fort Resolution, Deninu Ku’e School or Lutselk’e?

Deferred maintenance for Deninu Ku’e School is one of the things we have on the list for ’09–10.

Could I get a definition of deferred maintenance, please?

I don’t have the specific list of what’s being contemplated for the money that’s identified in the budget, but we could get back to the Member with that specific information.

I know less than the Minister thinks. I actually want a definition of the term “deferred maintenance,” not what they’re going to do with the money.

I hesitated to give a definition for deferred maintenance because I assumed I would be told I was being obtuse, that clearly he wanted the detail of what the money was going to be spent on. I just want to apologize to the Member.

Deferred maintenance is maintenance that should have been completed at a previous time but wasn’t for various reasons, usually fiscal. It has now been identified as needing to be done, which is why we’re spending the millions of dollars we have identified as a Legislature: to try to catch up on that particular backlog.

I’m glad to see there will be some deferred maintenance done on the school at Fort Resolution. How about the school in Lutselk’e?

There doesn’t appear to be anything on the list we have before us right here.

We don’t have that complete list. Once again, I can get the information for the Member of what major buildings were assessed.

We’ll move to the next person on our list. The next person on the list is Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, would like to respond to questions asked by Mr. Yakeleya in regard to the school that was built in Tulita.

When the school was destroyed by fire in Fort McPherson, the community had to put $400,000 into that school in order to get a larger sized gym. They were told that under the building standards for schools, there was only so much square footage based on enrolment and also the size of the classroom and everything else. That included a gymnasium.

Again, the community put $400,000 into that school, and that was in 1998. The school cost $8.5 million. Now we’re talking $20 million for schools. But it seems like there are different standards being used in regard to what is paid for by the Department of Education and what is being paid for by the residents of those particular communities.

I’d like to know exactly: are those standards still being used in regard to the amount that will be paid by the Department of EC&E, and will any add-ons or any additions be paid for by those affected residents in those communities?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is that EC&E has standards for the schools they have under their jurisdiction and that they are available. But I would ask if I could defer the question to Minister Lafferty to reply in more detail.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. As the Minister did indicate, there are standards for the Northwest Territories that we follow to build schools in the communities. There have been some initiatives from certain communities: Tulita, Gametì and, I believe, Fort McPherson, as the Member alluded to.

Those areas that are extra, beyond the school space or school activities, the Minister already indicated that is beyond the school standards. That is where we are with that. There are regular standards that we follow. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Krutko.