Thank you for the reminder of that earlier discussion. My impression is that the renovation would go on over the course of several years, perhaps three or more, and that they would be a fairly large suite ofthings given the state of the school, some of which would involve, you know, a thorough marriage between the physical maintenance of the building or renovation and the education plan but some of which surely would not. So I would like to ask a little more specifically: are there some significant renovations outside of that which would require an education plan that could be done and for which there has been some planning done?

Something seems inconsistent here, given that we had planned quite a number of millions of dollars for this ’09–10 as short a time as less than a year ago. I’m detecting some

inconsistencies there. I don’t have any specific further questions. I appreciate those comments.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Next on my list is Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had a few more comments on the Inuvik schools, if I could, similar to questions I have raised in the past and comments I have had in the past getting back to accountability. Again, I am supportive of the schools being replaced in Inuvik, but if you look at what the public sector would do if they had to replace an aging piece of infrastructure, it would have happened and it would have happened in a much more timely fashion. I don’t think we would have seen the scope changes, the design changes. I know that departments are up against it, because they’ve got a bunch of interested parties with district authority there in Inuvik. Things can get off the rails quite quickly.

But at the end of the day, when it is public money and the scope is changing — the design is changing, it seems like, on the fly — that comes with a price. Every time you change the design or you change the scope, it’s got to cost $100,000 or maybe even more. We’ve seen the project escalate in cost substantially — 35, 40 per cent. From where I sit, I have to worry: why does it take so long?

Now, the letter of intent for the negotiating contract went out in July, and here we are past the middle of October and still we don’t have a deal. We don’t have a firm price. We don’t have any of the security in place, and the negotiations are not concluded with the contract. I find that hard to believe — how it could take that long to sign off on this.

We need to get it done. We should have got it done. This should have been a number one priority of the government, and it seems to just keep slipping and slipping. The costs keep escalating. From an accountability standpoint we need to find out what has happened and make sure it doesn’t happen again, because we really need to replace the schools in Inuvik. That’s the bottom line.

I think we need a tighter way of handling things. If it’s been allowed to slip this much…. It has been over four years since the roof collapsed there. Here we are still talking about this. I just find it troublesome. Perhaps the Minister could comment on where the accountability lies in this with the escalation in costs, because I really do think we need to be accountable for the way this has gone off the rails.

Thank you Mr.

Ramsay. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to refer that question to Minister Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member raised a very important concern that we are currently reviewing as part of our committee that looks at the infrastructure process. Allowing projects to move along quickly is something that we certainly need to incorporate in our planning. Moving the capital approval process into the fall session is part of that.

We have had some discussion for quite a few years with the community, with the other departments involved, trying to bring this to a conclusion. This is not the first estimate that was provided to us. We had the community involved that brought forward a number of things that they wanted to incorporate into the school. We had many discussions, many meetings to see what could be accommodated and who would pay for it. At the end of the day, with the first round of discussions and the first schematic designs that came forward, the price was a lot higher than it is currently. It was rejected. We had to start again with a new design, with a new approach and more simplified architecture and also a reduction in the floor space. That’s where we made progress with the proponents.

We also had to include and incorporate a better foundation design that would incorporate the strengthening of the foundation to address the permafrost and the soil conditions. Also, one of the things that we incorporated into this building is energy efficiency. We included a program in here that would see us save a lot of money in the area of heating this facility. Overall, during that time period, while we went back and forth with the community and departments, we’ve seen the cost of all our projects escalate, and so did the cost of this one.

We would like to change the process so that we don’t build false expectations in the communities when we go forward unless the community is willing to pay for it. We want to be able to bring projects to a peer review stage before we bring them in front of committee, before we bring them in front of Committee of the Whole, things of that nature, so that we don’t end up in this situation again.

However, Mr. Chair, we have a good price, we feel. We’ve analyzed it. We think all precautionary measures have been taken so that we have a good project, and we’re quite comfortable that we will end up with a good result.

I thank the Minister for that. I agree with what he’s saying. I wasn’t a Member of the Legislative Assembly during the life of the 14th Legislative Assembly when North Slave Correctional Centre was built, but that building and the young offenders unit that joins it were built at millions and millions of dollars. I forget the final

figure. It was probably $20 million over budget, maybe even more.

You would think that as a government we would learn a thing or two along the way. When you go to a construction method that allows designs to change on the fly, it’s going to cost you money. So why wouldn’t we know exactly what we want and exactly how it’s going to be built, get the design etched in stone, and then go out and get it built? What we allow ourselves to do is this design-build, and then things get all muddy; the design changes and the scope changes, and it costs us nothing but money. On large capital projects we can’t just continue to allow so many people…. They say too many cooks in the kitchen, and that’s what’s happening. That’s what’s costing us lots of money.

I know the Minister and the deputy minister are alive to these concerns as we’re going through the change in the capital acquisition planning process and everything. These are legitimate concerns. We oftentimes, too, just spec buildings out to the nth degree. We get the best of the best all the time. I’ve heard that from a number of contractors around the territory. When the government goes out and looks for a contractor to build something, it’s spec’d…. A good example is the Combined Services Building at YZF. It’s spec’d to the teeth. Some schools that have been built recently have lights in them that are ten times the cost of a regular light that would go in a classroom. We always seem to go for the best of the best. What we really need to keep an eye on is the functionality and usefulness of the facilities that we are building in any community across the territory.

We have to get the most out of our capital dollars that we can, and right now I don’t think we are. This Inuvik schools project is just another example of us bleeding money away when we don’t really need to. We need to get some schools built. That’s the bottom line. We just seem to keep spinning our tires, and it takes too long, Mr. Chairman.

I’ve got great concerns, especially on the larger capital projects, that we don’t seem to learn our lesson. History is going to repeat itself again.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member raises some good points. We are in a time of transition with the planning process. This is our first cycle through, for example, having changed the capital planning process to the fall. We’ve struck an infrastructure subcommittee to look at a lot of the issues in regard to this process. We all know very well, those of us that have been here any length of time…. The North Slave Correctional Centre, the first P3 they built in Fort Smith back in the 13th Assembly, was the last one

they built at the time, as well, because of all the issues that came out of it.

We recognize there are things that we’re trying to do, as Minister McLeod indicated. We want to have a tighter cycle, a better peer review. We’re looking at bundling projects. We’re looking at standardized designs. We want to, as the Member has indicated, not overdesign buildings or bring in fittings that are so exclusive and rare that they’re incredibly expensive. Those things are underway.

This project, as has been pointed out, has been in the pipeline now for quite a few years. So we’re going to be in a time of transition here, as we make these significant changes to our infrastructure planning process. We have to work our way through to be able to show the new improvements that we intend to bring forward collectively here as the Legislature.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Next on my list is Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to return to a discussion of the delayed, deferred school project in Hay River. I’d like to follow up on some of Mr. Bromley’s questions that he listed and a few of my own.

I know this project’s been delayed. I have heard that the education program — or lack of one or the need to plan for one — is the reason for delay, but is that the only reason that this project was delayed two years?

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Aumond.

Thank you for the answer. I guess that leads nicely into my next question. How long does it generally take to develop an education program, and when was this one first started?

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll refer that education question to Minister Lafferty.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. The program enhancement that we’re talking about, that education plan, has been in the works since we started this fall, and it will be completed by the end of October. So once we complete the session, the education plan will be underway. Then we will continue to meet with PWS to continue moving forward on this particular school project.

Okay. Thanks for that answer. We approved $800,000 for this particular project in the ’08–09 capital budget; February, I think, we approved it. My understanding was that was planning money. So if we’re going to have an educational program done at the end of this month — I think that’s what the Minister said — I wonder when planning for renovations can take place. If the educational program is there, we know what’s required in terms of the technical requirements, building envelope, upgrades and so on. When do we expect that planning is going to start to develop some sort of drawings for this particular project?

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Aumond.