Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Miltenberger.

Interjection.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Next on my list is Mrs. Groenewegen.

The technical review of the Diamond Jenness Secondary School and the work that was planned there, where we actually saw numbers in a capital plan…. It’s pretty hard for me to believe or accept, as one of the MLAs for Hay River, that this whole thing had to be pushed back two years because of an educational review that was going to take two weeks.

I mean, the Minister of Education just said that the educational review was going to start being conducted by a consultant sometime in October and it’s going to be concluded by the end of October. So I’m sorry, but I’m having a hard time buying into this idea that the Diamond Jenness Secondary School was pushed back only because of an educational review.

The money that was indicated, the red flagging of this project because of the critical and priority nature of the work that needed to be done…. This is just a little excerpt under “capital plan project substantiation: the building is over 35 years old. It’s been renovated, but the entire scope of the work was not completed due to budget constraints. A technical status evaluation of the building completed in 2003 and then updated in 2006 determined that mechanical and electrical systems require significant capital upgrading as well as upgrade of the walls and windows is a high priority. Other major renovations have also been outlined which will extend the life of this asset.”

To go from having this earmarked and red flagged as a high priority capital retrofit project to pushing it back two years because there was an education plan that had to be undertaken, and it was going to take two weeks, is just a little bit hard to believe.

In follow-up to some of the questions Ms. Bisaro asked, Mr. Miltenberger responded that if there was capital available, we could get…. This substantiation report doesn’t talk to the budget constraint. Without budget constraint, and perhaps the fact that this educational review document will be produced by the end of October, I’m going to ask again if there is any of this work related to the roof, the envelope, the foundation, the air-handling. Is there anything that could be started in the summer of ’09?

Given all the background information that’s already been compiled, does everything have to hinge upon this educational review? I mean, I’m in support of the educational review if there are things that need to be changed. But when the Minister of Public Works says that people in the community wanted to look at different things for the school…. I’m curious: did they have any official correspondence to that effect? Was this just in a casual conversation, in a tour of the school? It didn’t come from my office. From where did it come that this project should be put on hold for two years because somebody thought that the program should be so altered? I’d like to know what triggered that.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister Miltenberger.

I’ll ask Mr. Aumond to reply to that.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Aumond.

Mr. Chairman, as I have stated in this House before and will state again, the school in Hay River is a bit of a landmark. It may be old, but it is of a design that is unusual, outstanding, and it’s a tourist attraction. I don’t think you’re going to completely change the exterior. I mean, it needs to be upgraded, definitely. It needs new windows; it may need new siding. If you’re going to use the same school, it’s hard for me to believe that a program review for what you’re going to do inside that school is going to…. You would think that wisdom would tell you that you’re going to probably try to change the programming space with a minimal amount of change to the building. If you don’t, I guess you might as well tear it down and start again, and I’m not suggesting that’s what we should do.

When we toured the school, there was talk about enhanced trade shop opportunities. They’re making do with a very small space there. And the access is an issue: the administrative offices in relationship to people coming in and out of school, security, things like that. These are not things that are going to cause the exterior walls of the school to be moved. There may be an addition — there may be a wing added on, something to that effect — but the main body of the school is going to remain the same, as far as I know.

I’m still not really hearing where the idea for a full program review came from. I don’t know if it came from the principal. Did it come from the local district education authority? Did it come from the teachers?

It didn’t come from the MLAs that I’m aware of. So where did that idea come from? You went from having a midlife retrofit to looking at a full program review. Even with a program review a high school is a high school is a high school, and we’re not going to turn it into a banana.

Interjection.

All right. That’s Inuvik, yeah.

Laughter.

I’m wondering: on some of this mechanical and stuff, which has been extensively studied, why can’t we get started if funds are not an issue? Can I hear clearly that we could get started in the summer of ’09?

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister Miltenberger.

Mr. Chairman, first I’d like to refer the question about the education program review to Minister Lafferty to give us the history and the background of how that entered into the mix.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Chair. With this program review we’ve been talking about, there’s been a consultant who was hired back in August. We initiated the discussion with the damage in that school.

When we toured the school early in the new year, there was considerable discussion on added areas; some areas needed to be upgraded or enhanced. There was some discussion from the DEA, the parents, the school staff and administration. There was a need to do some sort of consultation with the school to identify where we need to upgrade within the school. There’s been considerable discussion with various parents in the evenings and also DEAs, the school staff and administration with the five to eight days, and there will be eight to 12 days of on site visits, a meeting with the Chair and a meeting with the DEAs, the student focus group, the parent focus group. Those are the groups where there’s been some discussion on this educational plan. It will be, I’m getting messages, completed by the end of October. Mahsi.

If it’s going to be completed by the end of October, that gives us

—

November,

December, January, February, March, April, May, June — eight months until the kids are out of school. Obviously, the best time to be doing work on the school is when the students aren’t there, because there are 400 students at Diamond Jenness. I don’t think it’s going to be very easy to find alternative locations for them to be getting their

education. Some of this work needs to be done in the summer months when the school is not occupied. It may have to be done in a way where a certain amount of the work is done at one time, and it may have to have a phased approach.

If budget is not an issue, is it possible that the Department of Public Works could look for specific contracts and things that need to be done that could begin to be undertaken in the summer of ’09?

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you. I’d like to refer that question to Minister Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Michael McLeod.

Mr. Chairman, I’m not the Minister of Finance, but I’d like to think that anything’s possible.

The Member is quite correct that the Department of Public Works has identified this project as a priority for renovation to address major deferred maintenance issues. The problem is the project has not proceeded through the planning study phase that the ECE is currently undertaking. They’re doing the functional program review, and I’m sure they’ll be coming back with a certain number of program enhancements for this project.

Given that that work is not expected to be completed until sometime this fall and we’re expecting the design work will not be completed until the spring and summer of 2009, we had anticipated that this project would be brought forward for inclusion in the 2010–2011 plan. Provided everything goes well and the functional review goes with everybody in agreement, it may be a possibility. But our experience has shown us that the functional reviews can take some time. We have to consult with the community, provided that there are enhancements to this project. We’d have to look at design and then bring it back, then also have the community put their stamp of approval on it. Sometimes that gets complicated.

Provided all those things fall into place, there may be a possibility to bring it forward. But, again, that would be a question that the Finance Minister along with the FMB would have to discuss. It was intended to defer this project until all components were in place, and we expect it will take a whole year to do all that.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Next on my list is Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just something I was thinking about while I was listening to the debate with great interest, of course: with the

Cardinal design of that Hay River school, do we still have to go through some approval process for him to sign off if any changes are made to that school?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.

Mr. Chairman, I’d have to ask the Member just to elaborate a bit more; I’m not clear. When he talks about approval processes, is he talking about with the Legislature? I’m not sure.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. When the Hay River high school was designed, it also came with some type of caveat — if I remember correctly, that is — that any substantial change to the building, including painting, had to have some type of sign-off of the architect. Is that true, and if it is true, how is it being worked around?