I’ve heard a lot of individuals stating that certain businesses are committed and then I’ve heard that those businesses aren’t committed. The city has asked us for a commitment and we have not committed in any way, shape, or form to this project.

What we are willing to do, and what we have indicated to them that we’re willing to do, is once a comprehensive business plan is provided which outlines the costs, we will assess it to see if there are savings to the government, what the costs to government would be, and if those costs are reasonable, we would absolutely approach the House for more discussion and debate on this

particular topic. Right now we have not seen a business plan and until we see a business plan, there’s nothing to do on this particular file.

I’m happy with that at this particular time.

Thank you. Any further questions from any Members? If not, I will go back to Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Interesting discussion there. I guess my first question to the Minister is: Does he see a role for promotion of the arts by GNWT and do we currently display local artwork in government buildings?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It would purely be my opinion, but as MLA for the Northwest Territories I have constantly and I will always be a supporter of the arts. When the Member asked similar questions about office space before, I agreed to work closely with Education, Culture and Employment and I will continue to work with Education, Culture and Employment and ITI, who have roles in supporting arts in the Northwest Territories. I think the Member’s suggestion that office space might be a reasonable place to support northern artists, I think that’s certainly an interesting idea and that’s why we’re pursuing it. I recognize my other colleague Mr. Hawkins’ concerns. We will take those into consideration. We will work closely with ECE, ITI and artists to find some real solutions if the space is there.

Thanks for the Minister’s remarks. It sounds reasonable to me. I would also urge the Minister to in fact consult with businesses, who I suspect would be wildly enthusiastic for the display of local art in government space, especially public space that might be frequented by the public. I would ask the Minister to make that commitment to also consult with businesses about the display of local art.

We will. Thank you.

My other line of questions has to do with the Capital Asset Retrofit Fund Program, a program which I am wholeheartedly supportive of. Although I’m sure some of my colleagues may have some reason to criticize it. I’m wondering if the Minister could give us, you know, perhaps not right now but in paper form if it hasn’t been provided, the payback times and greenhouse gas savings, and what the anticipated contributions to the fund will be from the projects being proposed from the fund this year.

For this budget the fund is $1.2 million, which is up significantly from last year. These dollars, as I’ve explained in the past, are based on savings that we’ve received

from putting different assets and doing different projects. We expect and hope this fund will continue to grow, and the money for this fund is purely from savings.

We do have some breakdowns of some previous year work. The current year work hasn’t been completely finalized, and that will help build the fund for the previous year.

I will commit to getting the Member and committee a breakdown of the types of activities we’ve done under the fund, projected savings and, where possible, real savings that have actually helped build the fund. I will commit to getting that to the Member.

That’s all the questions I had. I just will note that that has been provided for past years and we have that information. When it’s available for this year, this proposed year, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

In that case, we won’t bother re-providing it, but we will get you the current year stuff as soon as we’ve got it completed.

Thank you. Next on the list I have Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My questions will be under the project listing of deferred maintenance. Before I ask my questions here, I think it’s important that the people listening at home understand the definition of what is deferred maintenance versus regular maintenance, and I would ask the Minister to set the record straight on the definition of both those terms. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Madam Chair. When individual departments defer maintenance, this is when we utilize the Deferred Maintenance Program. By deferring maintenance, I’m referring to the fact where the practice of postponing maintenance activities such as repairs on buildings and infrastructure in order to save costs meet funding levels or realign the available funding. During the lifecycle of a building, usually about halfway through the midlife, there’s a requirement to do some major upgrades and make sure that everything is up to date and running fast, and that the building needs are still meeting the needs of the client, department and the public. In the past, those have been deferred.

This program that we have in place is designed to assess the amount of deferred maintenance requirements in the government infrastructure and address it and find ways to improve that. It was $470 million when it was assessed, I think it was 2008-09 when the program came in, and we’ve got down to about $325 million.

The deferred maintenance that we’re talking about here is the capital side. That’s the $5 million budget, but there’s also an O and M side under the deferred maintenance for smaller activities.

Maintenance, on the other hand, is resulting from sort of just general upkeep of buildings, which might include fluorescent tube repairs, dealing with windows that may be broken, boiler repairs, regular upgrades on boilers. Not really lifecycle, but things that support lifecycle. There are some differences between just general maintenance and then the deferred maintenance plan.

I appreciate the Minister’s forensic review of those terms just so we know what we’re talking about, and I think everyone appreciates knowing the terms.

That said, as the Minister indicated, the deferred maintenance component on the capital side has been in historical past a fairly large and significant number of the budget. I believe that number has come down over the last couple budgets, but is still, as the Minister just indicated, it is a $5 million component.

What is the forecast that the department is looking at in their deferred maintenance budget for the next couple of years? Is this a number that we’re going to see continuously going in more of a decline mode so we’re getting better control of our deferred maintenance costs as we move forward within the life of this Assembly?

Yes. We have seen it come down, and I think that’s indicative of the direction that the deferred maintenance will continue to go. There are a number of ways that items could come off the deferred maintenance list. By way of example, we just completed the construction of a new school in Inuvik, and as a result of that new school being completed, we are able to get rid of and demolish both the Samuel Hearne and the SAMS school. As a result, there is a significant amount of deferred maintenance tied up in those buildings. Once they are no longer there, that deferred maintenance is no longer required, but it stays on the books as long as the asset is live.

There are a number of assets out there that, over time, will come down; some of the different projects we are working on. An example, again, is the school in Deline. It requires a significant amount of work. We have invested a significant amount of work into that building and as we do the work on that building, the deferred maintenance costs will come down.

We have done some things to help us control these particular expenditures in the future. With our new capital planning process that came into place, I believe it was 2008-09, in addition to requiring Class C estimates and having other information, the

planning process includes an assessment of maintenance that’s going to be required to keep those buildings up to current standards during the life of the building, including some consideration around when a midlife review or updates are going to be required. We also require, in the new capital planning process, requirements for the departments to do an assessment of their O and M. As a result, Public Works and Services also has to do an assessment of the O and M because they would be responsible for maintenance on those buildings that we build. There are a number of things, as a result of this new capital planning process, that will help us control these costs moving forward so that we don’t end up in a situation where our new buildings are becoming deferred.

I heard the word “deferred” many times, and “midlife”. Sometimes I feel the same way.

I guess the Minister did a great job in terms of setting the stage for my next set of questions. He did indicate that Public Works and Services is bringing this number down. This is a number that should be going in the right direction for taxpayers. I guess my question is: As members of committee here, we should see a decrease in that number over the next couple of budgets, that we will not see the repeat of $5 million on an annual capital assessment for budget purposes. Can we get some reassurances that that number will come down and that $5 million will not be a repeat number for the next couple budgets?

I actually disagree. We will need to maintain that $5 million and possibly increase it in order to get this number to continue to drop. Cost of doing business continues to go up. Cost of some of these retrofits is going to continue to go up. We have a lot of old buildings that didn’t have regular lifecycle upgrades and that’s how we got into this situation to begin with. A lot of those buildings aren’t planned for complete replacement for extended periods of time, if they’re even on the plan at this point, and we still have a requirement to make sure that they’re to code and that they are safe and that they are positive places.

If we were to reduce the fund now, we will actually slow our ability to decrease the total outstanding deferred maintenance, so I don’t expect we will be coming with a reduction to the $5 million anytime soon. We have $325 million outstanding at $5 million a year. That’s a lot of years.

I guess in one sense – and I’ll have to go back and look at the Hansard – we’re doing a better job to get a better handle on our deferred maintenance. Buildings are coming off the queue, so to speak, with new buildings, and that this number was coming down from what I think was said by the Minister. Now we’re hearing that that number is going to stay consistent because the

projects are going to be compounded. I guess as a Regular Member I have a hard time understanding both sides of that definition. We’re making improvements and yet that number is going to have to remain the same as an outlook.

I’ll leave it at that. If the Minister wants to comment on what I just said, it is his prerogative, but I don’t understand the math that was just explained here today.

I’ll try and do a better job of explaining the math. Currently, we have an outstanding deferred maintenance requirement of $325 million. As I’ve indicated, there are a number of ways for us to get that down. As buildings that have deferred maintenance are taken down and disposed of, the price drops. The main way that we’re getting rid of some of these costs is the continual investment of $5 million in capital annually, and we’re going to have to keep investing in order to bring down the entire $325 million. It’s going to take a bit of time for us to knock down that $325 million through the $5 million a year investment annually, demolition of buildings that have had replacements put in place, and any other number of activities. But if we were to cancel or stop investing our $5 million a year, the number would just become stagnant and it would never come down. So we need to continue to invest for a period of time. That period of time is not going to be completed within the life of this government. I imagine that investment will need to continue beyond the life of the 17th Assembly.

We are reducing and we will continue to reduce the overall demand of $325 million, but we must invest every year in order to do that.

Mr. Abernethy, do you want repeat that last statement on the record, please? Mr. Abernethy.

Sure, Madam Chair, I just said it doesn’t disappear by itself. It needs investment.