Somewhere back a few answers I heard somebody say that there was a possibility that some work could possibly be undertaken. I was talking about the phases of the project and where things that need upgrading or retrofitting or changing — if anything could be undertaken while the kids are away the whole summer — to start looking at these things. I had

mentioned ’09. I like the answer I got to the ’09 question, because I heard it was possible.

Then when other people started talking about accelerating, it got a little bit wishy-washy there. Let’s just talk about the possibility for ’09. If — and I know that sounds hypothetical; that’s the big if in here — program review is done, the money is there, and we can look at doing this in the least disruptive way possible for the education of the high school students in Hay River, is some of the work a possibility for ’09? If so, would the Finance Minister be bringing back the details of the scope of that work in February? Thank you for approval.

If the educational program or functional review is completed on time and if Public Works gets the document and can do their design work around what is going to be required for an educational footprint and if that is done in a timely way, as the Minister of Public Works and Services has indicated, he will bring that forward to FMB for their consideration. The Member is correct that if there is, through this process, an opportunity to start doing things in a phased in way, which is why this project is laid out with the money that is there, and if there is a possibility to phase it in at a more accelerated way over the coming summer of ’09–10, we’ve all committed to making every effort to get that done.

Thank you. To Mr. Hawkins’ questions about whether modern day formulas would mean smaller classrooms than we have now, I want to assure Members that we can’t get classrooms smaller than what we have right now. So it would be, as Mr. Aumond said, that in some cases it would mean smaller classrooms and some cases the reverse. In this case, it would be the reverse, because you can’t get classrooms smaller and more dysfunctional in that sense from what we have right now in Hay River South at Diamond Jenness. Some of you have seen them. There is not even a proper dividing wall between the classrooms. It was back in the day when they thought that some movable partition was a good idea so they could open classrooms up. Even the sound area between the classrooms is an issue. I’m not worried about any kind of formula diminishing the size of the school there.

There probably are some areas in Diamond Jenness that are of questionable value, like the stairwells, for example, which seem to absorb a tremendous amount of space, but without tearing the building down and going with a completely new design, you’re not going to really be able to avoid that.

I think personally, from what I know, it seems like the school is worth saving. It is a landmark in the community, but I am concerned about the continued deterioration. When you look at this

technical evaluation and you look at some of the pictures of some of the things around the foundation, the water, the drainage, some of the capping on the roof that is causing water to not drain away properly…. I understand the idea of not throwing a lot of good money after bad if you’re fixing things that are going to be ripped out or changed or substantially altered. I still believe that if we’re going to stick with the main school, the structure of the school the way it is, there are things that could be identified and that could be done that are going to stop the deterioration of some of the areas of the school that are going to address some of the potential prior issues.

I think that if there were a fire in that school today, you would have some serious issues and gaps appear with respect to penetration through firewalls, doors that aren’t rated for fire. I think you’d see some really significant damage, and that is the kind of thing you want to avoid. That’s the kind of thing that with minimal investment you can address.

I know it is more challenging than just having a contractor being in the school and handing it over to them for a period of time and being able to do everything at once. I know it is more challenging, but if there were a way of trying to be stewards of this asset and putting things first that kind of shore up areas where there could be deterioration with time, I would be very much in support of the Department of Public Works looking at those and getting started on this project sooner than later.

Now I am starting to sound like a broken record, but I think that maybe the powers that be have my opinion well registered on Hansardtoday.

Thank you, Mrs.

Groenewegen. More of a comment; no real question. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just following up on the Diamond Jenness school. There have been two technical review studies done since 1980; 1996, I believe, was the last one. I know for a fact that this thing has been on the drawing board in the past, has been scheduled in regard to our capital planning process, and it continues to keep being bumped forward versus trying to do something with it. I think it is important as a government that we do everything we can do to bring this project to fruition or allow it to see the light of day.

There are some major technical challenges to that facility. It is 35 years old. I have gone through the facility myself and also have seen the reports that have come out on that facility. I think we have to do everything to ensure that we have a quality of education, also ensuring that the safety and well-being of the students and the teachers are our first priority. Especially with facilities which are 35 years old, there are a lot of health issues surrounding it in

regard to the types of materials that were built 35 years ago. Now a lot of those materials are registered as hazardous materials.

I’d like to ask to the Minister again, knowing this has been previously approved and now it has been deferred forward, knowing the amount of work that has been expended over the years in regard to the amount of study, the amount of reports, the amount of assessments…. There were plans in place to look at alternative space while the construction took place; I know that took place. So a lot of dollars have been expended on this project, a lot of work done by Public Works and Services. I’d like to ask the Minister: do you have the cost breakdown on how much money has been expended to date on the Diamond Jenness School, and why is it that it continues to be bumped ahead?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the benefit of the Member let me just restate that we’ve made a significant number of commitments between Education and Public Works and the Financial Management Board to work to see if we can move this project with all alacrity, to get it and see what is possible by this coming year, ’09–10, in the summer. But there were a number of ifs, as the Member from Hay River is aware. I’ve asked Mr. Aumond if he could speak to the issue of how much has been expended to date on the Diamond Jenness project.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Aumond.

I know that within the last two years there were plans in place to move this project ahead and do it in different phases, that you were going to do a certain aspect of construction in regard to the mechanical side of the building, another phase looking at the shop and whatnot, so that you can still functionally use the facility.

But at some point you’re going to have to look at an alternative space. That plan was already in place. It was already contemplated to move on that. There was a lot of planning and research in regard to how we were going to construct this facility in different phases. That work has already been done. I think it is important to realize that we as a government have already talked to the divisional board of education. We’ve talked to the Town of Hay River; we’ve talked to the MLAs. I know that those discussions have taken place. Again I’d like to ask:

why is it that there is no movement on this file yet? We’ve been talking about this for years.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to summarize once again, there is movement on this project. The functional review that Education is doing for their program requirements is going to be concluded, hopefully, by the end of October. We’ve committed for Public Works and Services to take a look at that and do their design work once they know what the educational footprint is going to look like. If all those pieces go in sequence and there are no extensive delays for whatever reason, then we’ve committed to the Minister of Public Works, who has indicated he’d be prepared to come to FMB, if there’s a plan or ability for us to move faster than is currently laid out in the capital plan, looking to see what’s possible from a phased in approach as laid out, as Mrs. Groenewegen indicated in her comments, we will.

Again, Mr. Chairman, in the 15th Assembly a lot of work was put into this project and moving it ahead. It was done by the Minister of Education, the Minister of Public Works and the MLAs, and it was on the drawing board to move ahead.

Something has happened between the 15th and the

16th Assemblies, where this project has basically

moved totally off the game plan that was put in place in the 15th Assembly. This was supposedly

moving forward during that period of time. A lot of work and a lot of reviews took place. There was a plan in place to move on this project. We have the reports. We have had the assessment. It has gone to Cabinet. It has gone by way of these reviews between the MLAs, the Department of Education and the Department of Public Works. It’s gone through every step that had to be taken so that it can proceed, but for some reason it seems like there’s a bottleneck in the system somewhere, that this project has not been given the tools it needs to proceed. What we’re asking here is: can we proceed with this project in a timely manner so that they don’t have to wait until 2010 or ’11? Can we do it sooner?

Mr. Chairman, I’m of the opinion and I believe on record that we’ve already committed to that process.

Well, if he’s committed to moving on this project, that’s what I want to hear.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. No real question. There’s nobody else on the list, so we’ll go back to Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Chairman, I have a motion.

Go ahead, Mrs. Groenewegen.

I move that this committee defer further consideration of the activity Education and Culture under the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, Capital Estimates 2009–2010, on pages 7-7 and 7-8 at this time. Thank you.

The motion has been distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question is being called.

Committee motion carried.

We’ll defer pages 7-7 and 7-8 under Education, Culture and Employment, and we’ll move along to Public Works and Services on pages 4-4 and 4-5. Is committee agreed?