Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am happy to hear that the Member is pleased, at least with the process. He’s raised a number of concerns, the first one being the issue of tenders still being put out later than we would anticipate because of the change in the timing and the approval process. I think that is a concern that has also been voiced by the NWT Construction Association, although they are very pleased that we have changed the timing of our capital budget approval. They’ve endorsed it. We have consulted with them.
Our challenge, of course, over the last two years is the number of projects we have to deliver and have out the door every year and although it’s a good challenge, it’s a difficult one. We have our capital plan and also all the projects under Deferred Maintenance and some really strict deadlines put in place with some of the federal funding programs.
The positive side of it, though, is we have delivered, for the most part, all our projects this year. For example, we have 95 percent of our projects out either in construction or in the process. The fall schedule is really something that we feel is a good one as a government, as departments. It gives us certainty on what projects are moving forward and allows us to design and it allows us to draft specs and put tender documents together a lot sooner than we would have through the old system. We would have really been challenged had we not changed our approval system to this new one.
I want to point out again to the Member that we have included O and M costs in the planning process. We apologize if that wasn’t apparent enough, but we have flagged that and it will be clearly demonstrated in next year’s substantiation documents that are presented to the Members.
There are two types of costs when we talk about O and M and new facilities. There is the rigid O and M costs that are incorporated in any facility that we take on and, of course, there is the program costs that are reviewed and sometimes increased as the facility is put in place, whether the facility is new or changed or program specific. So that is something that is really the responsibility of departments.
The issue that the Member raised about identifying regional investment and taking into consideration the economic activity of the community or the region or where the project is going to go is, of course, a difficult one. Our system is based on need. We identify projects that are of highest need. That is compiled by the different departments that have infrastructure projects. The focus is on protecting people and protecting assets. Those come through and come forward, they are identified during the summer months and come forward and are reviewed. There are two committees that act as filters that make sure all the information is correct and in place. Once that’s all done, the Deputy Ministers Committee forwards it to the FMB and it’s also reviewed at that point and provided for review by the Members. It’s a fairly comprehensive process that we’ve put in place and it’s been working quite well.
About asking MLAs what they would want to see in the writing, I think that’s something that already happens. I think we hear very clearly from each Member that has a capital interest in certain projects, that that is something that’s usually quite evident in this House or in terms of correspondence and private discussions. That is something that is part of our process.
Of course, we have a limited budget. There was an issue raised about some of the schools; Mildred Hall and Sissons. The Mildred Hall School I think had a limited budget, as the Member indicated, and it would have to be up to the appropriate Department of ECE to do the legwork on it and
bring it back. In terms of the maintenance on Sissons School that was raised and identified as an issue that we should look at, that right now is not something that Public Works and Services or any of our departments provide for that facility. That is something that is contracted out. ECE provides the maintenance dollars directly to the boards and they do it on their own. There is, and has been, some retrofits in some of the schools. That is, of course, on behalf of ECE and that is done by the board.
I put it out to a question earlier, that there is a fairly comprehensive strategy that’s been put together for all the schools in Yellowknife, and that is something that will be used as a guide as we move forward and work with the different school boards and the members of this community of Yellowknife.