Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ve appreciated the considerable debate we’ve had on this project. I’ve been collecting points and am still equivocal on this, and I’ll be listening closely for the rest of the debate. I am convinced that there’s value in doing this building the way it’s proposed. The $39 million in premium that we’d save is substantial,
and I’m very, very cognizant of the need for infrastructure dollars. This is almost $2 million a year. There’s so much that we could do with that money.
There’s also the vacancy issue and market study business. Again, I’m not convinced that 7 per cent or 7,000 square foot vacancy is actually an acceptable level of vacancy and one which is surely planned for by investors and developers. But to balance that, the study hasn’t been done. That’s sort of the best estimate of one of our Members who made some phone calls. I have to support the idea of doing a market assessment in communities where it is such an incredibly big deal to have infrastructure like this, which is most of our communities, that some sort of a market assessment be done.
I also am cognizant that the government has assured me that they will substantially keep the retail space, the commercial space that they’re now occupying, with the exception of the Perry Building and our own two 45 year old buildings. That’s significant to me. Again, it helps persuade me that the market impact will be modest.
I’m also expecting that we will continue to be an active and significant tenant in the community, as I think we have been since the inception of the community. So I’m again assured on that front.
But the dilemma comes in comparing dollars committed to this project versus where they could go. I think it’s been mentioned already that this project seems to have appeared without going through the normal planning process which we typically are referred to when we bring things up. We’re to some extent being told we should do it because we planned, that there’s money identified for it and the planning has been done to actually build this. Again, balancing that is how much. We know that we have a huge amount of carry-over. It’s been 25, 45, 60 and now 80 or 90 per cent in the last four years carry-over, and Inuvik already clearly has tens of millions of dollars of infrastructure demanding attention and people and skills to the extent that will this just become another carry-over?
I guess, finally, I can’t help commenting about the other opportunities we have or might have had to spend these dollars had some rigour, and I’m not sure what, been brought to the process of planning. I just can’t believe, for example, that the Hay River Diamond Jenness school, with all we know about that, has not been properly planned for at this point in time.
So that’s where I’m at. It’s still a question in my mind, and I’ll be listening to any further comments and making my decision.