Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d suggest to the Member that this Legislature has made a conscious commitment to set up a government-wide, territorial-wide green fund filled with $60 million, funded by $60 million, for projects across the land in a whole host of areas. We have the capacity, as a Legislature, to set up funds. We’re coming forward here in the next week to table our heritage fund proposal for consideration. So it’s a decision of the Legislature, but I would suggest that, clearly, we’ve already put some significant resources into a government-wide fund for those very purposes. Thank you.

I thank the Minister for that information. I already know that information and I agree readily that we have earmarked a huge amount of money for energy projects for green projects, but there is no opportunity within that $60 million that has been identified for municipalities or for communities to apply and to access those funds. So I’d like to ask the Minister how any NWT community can access those funds for a particular high cost capital project that they might have. Thank you.

I’d point out to the Member we have the wind energy proposal coming out of Tuk that’s going to be funded. We have mini-hydro out of Lutselk'e that’s going to be funded. We’re looking for pilot projects. We’re looking at some of the communities like Jean Marie. We’re looking at waste recovery at specific communities that have come forward. So, once again, I’d suggest to the Member that the process we’re setting up is based partially on government retrofitting its own buildings, but the majority of that money is targeted to go to communities. We’ve got extensive money in there for rebates and incentives to homeowners as well as businesses to make the right choices. So, once again, I would submit to the Member that if you look carefully at what work this Legislature has undertaken, we have addressed that issue. Thank you.

I thank the Minister for the information. Again, I have to agree to disagree with him, unfortunately. I’d like for him to answer for me how a community can get to be one of the many

projects which he’s mentioned. I give the government credit for the wind energy, for the recycling, all those things that we have done, but those are government projects. I would like to know how any community can access those funds. What is the application process? What are the guidelines, et cetera, et cetera? Can he explain that, please? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, let’s take Tuk for example. That was a project that was brought forward by the Inuvialuit up in the Beaufort-Delta. They’ve been pushing it for a long time. By making the decision to put $60 million into a fund, we had the capacity to move on that. Mini-hydro in Lutselk'e, same thing. We’ve committed to getting hydro into Whati; huge community involvement. They’ve been pushing that. We’re committed to work with the Tlicho in Whati to sort that out. Those are examples and they’re across the North. We’ve done that geothermal in the Deh Cho. I mean, there’s a long, long list. Projects are there, the people are coming forward and we’re considering them. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Your final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister I guess I have to say that I appreciate that people can apply for these funds, but there’s no identified pot of money that is going specifically to communities. I guess I would encourage any community out there to apply to the Minister for some funds.

The last thing I want to say is that the situation that exists now with no specific process for communities to apply does not allow them to apply for a loan, and in many cases it’s the community needs a loan not necessarily a grant. So can I ask the Minister how a community who needs a loan for a project could get that money out of this government? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we would have to, of course, point to the gas tax money and infrastructure money that’s flowed to communities; New Deal money. They have the capacity to plan their own projects. They know that there’s an availability to come to government. They also have the ability now, as far as I recollect, to, in fact, borrow money. So they would have to look at that. If they need extraordinary financing they would have to talk to organizations. MACA would be there to provide advice. So that potential is there already. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions will probably best be directed to the Minister of Public Works and Services in regard to the bidding process this government has. Like I stated, most of the projects in the past have had some major cost overruns and in some cases have doubled in cost. Back then we used to use the Class D estimates to come up with the figure or the number that we were looking at. I know that the department has made a decision to look at Class C estimates. So I’d just like to ask the Minister, have we seen more accurate costs of those facilities and now we’re seeing less cost overruns or is that still a problem in regard to a lot of these capital projects?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister responsible for Public Works and Services, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the Member rattle off a long list of projects that have gone over budget, many before my time. Mr. Speaker, I should clarify that we have a lot of projects that are on budget. We have budgets from the north end of the Territories and we have projects here in Yellowknife that are going well. So it’s unfair, I guess, to have the public think that all our projects are off their budget estimations.

Mr. Speaker, the Member is correct, though, when he states that we had looked at a capital process that we were utilizing for many years that allowed for projects to come in and be listed on the 20-year needs and then work its way into the five-year needs and sometimes just go right directly ahead of the line. That caused a lot of concern. At the beginning of this government we undertook, through Public Works, an assessment of that and decided that we needed to change the system that we were utilizing and have since now incorporated a new longer term assessment period. In the first year we would need to see planning studies. We wouldn’t move into the next phase, which would be design, until we had a need analysis and operational plan, a Class C cost estimate, and we also would not start construction until the third or fourth year. We also would look at warranty and things of that nature within the fifth year, including the commission of that actual project. We have made a lot of changes. I think it is a better system and allows us to do the proper due diligence and it is working quite well as far as we could see. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in regards to the contracting process that we use, we use negotiated contracts, sole source, bidding processes, but the project that comes to mind is the project in Inuvik. I

know the original estimate when we were first looking on the books was $58 million. Then when they did basically another estimate, it came in at $79 million. The latest estimate is over $100 million. I would like to know, using the school project, is that project on cost, on time and, more importantly, can you state that there will be no cost overruns on this school project in Inuvik? Is that too soon to make that prediction? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of Members are asking me to state whether the project is going to be on time and on schedule with no cost overruns. That is something that I can’t guarantee. In this case, the project is on schedule and within budget. We don’t expect to see any cost overruns that we can recognize at this point. We will keep the Member informed. We will certainly do a review of that project as we move forward also. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I could recall when we built the school in Fort McPherson at that time, because there was a possibility of cost overruns, they had to cut back or cut out certain things such as the gymnasium and whatnot. I would like to ask the Minister, is there actually a process that takes away certain parts of the project if it is over budget and that you have to come in on budget that you have to basically streamline that project so you are actually on cost? Is that still a practice of government where you have to actually develop a project on cost and also that means you have to downsize the project or streamline the scope of work? Is that something that is done by his department when there is a possibility of a cost overrun?

Mr. Speaker, there is a review that requires us to demonstrate need, to demonstrate the design and confirm why we would need certain designs. We are moving to a more consistent approach of what the actual needs are versus allowing for all kinds of inclusion including sometimes the community wants certain things for cultural aspect or things that would reflect art or things of that nature. We have to be very convinced that it is a useful part of the building. In the case of the new school, for example, we have done a lot of work in the early stages. The design was close to being something that we are going to be moving forward on and recognizing that there was a cost factor and, therefore, had to take a step back, do the review and reduce the costs so it could fit what our budget was. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister if he can provide the information on exactly what the actual costs for the Inuvik school project is, the office building in Inuvik and also the school project in Fort Good Hope, if

those projects are on cost and, more importantly, if there is a cost overrun, to notify Members of the House. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, depending on timelines and when the Member would like the information, we certainly commit to doing that. I am not sure if we have all the information to the point where we can predict that there is going to be a cost overrun, but we would certainly be willing and commit to sharing that information with the Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of the Housing Corporation. I just want to follow up on my Member’s statement and our discussion yesterday. I want to ask the Minister in regards to the review of the rental issue here. Will the Minister confirm to me and to the House here that the purpose of the rental review is to reduce the cost of living for the public housing tenants and not to increase their costs?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation, Mr. Robert McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the rent scale review is to have an overall look at how the rent scale is delivered and, in consultation with the standing committee and the public or the tenants, to see what improvements that we can make. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, certainly I agree with the Minister, because the Minister, in his exchange with me yesterday, said he has heard the arguments and I think he said something like look at improving some of the way they do the rental scale. I think that is a good start in terms of how we start making some of these improvements. I hope with that type of discussion here that the Minister will look at ways to reduce the cost of living for public housing tenants. Will the Minister commit to finalizing the report and the recommendations early in the spring so that changes can be made sooner than later?