What type of authority do we have to provide direction on this particular one? The reason I say that is because if Public Works actually has to pick up the cost and there’s a shortfall, it looks like it’s Public Works’ fault as opposed to whoever is creating the overconsumption, or I’ll call it poor management of our assets and utilities. That said, it looks like Public Works has to be the mop-up, but what authority do they have to lean back into the departments?

I think I get the point that the Member’s trying to make as who is ultimately responsible for usage, and because we have the responsibility for running and managing the buildings and paying the bills, we ultimately have responsibility for paying those bills. We would have conversations with departments when usage is identified as one of the driving increases on costs. But this is not something that’s actually been a problem for us.

I mean, we monitor billings. We have a pretty good baseline of what the costs are going to be and the usage is going to be, and when we see a spike we, as I’ve indicated, determine whether it’s a mechanical or a system problem as opposed to a use problem by the client department. Where it’s been a client issue hasn’t really popped up. We’ve had a couple situations where we’ve had spikes due to mechanical, but not due to unexpected usage. If it did, we would certainly have a conversation with the department and talk about usage.

Mr. Hawkins, your time is up but I have no one left on the clock so I will put you back on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Not much more. I think the Minister is seeing where I’ve been building the issue. When Public Works picked up responsibility and I couldn’t remember, so I’m glad he said it was three years ago. I do remember it was a few years ago. Was full financial responsibility transferred over, and so by way of means, was full resources transferred over or was there an expectation when FMB came up with this great reorg, or who’s now the money and who’s going to be responsible for it, did they transfer, what I’ll call, in a parallel manner? So our budgets were this much, so let’s move it all over to the new line in Public Works, or did they sort of calculate it and say, because you’re a department, you probably can carry this so you get 80 percent of the budget?

That occurred in the previous Assembly, and I think as an MLA I remember having some discussions about that exact topic. If I remember correctly, the response at that time was that they made an effort to do an assessment of usage and costs, and transfer over the full amount. Can we say we got the full amount?

In reality, hard to say, but they indicated they were going to do a full assessment to try to determine the costs and transfer over what was required to continue to pay the bills moving forward.

I’m just trying to get a sense here is Public Works being stuck with a responsibility where the users of the system, in the sense that the users of the power who are consuming the power are not responsible, and yet Public Works gets to wear the dirty laundry and make up the shortfall. In the last three years this particular area would have been budgeted with the department. How has the consistency been for the department to be able to pay these bills without having to require to move money from other program areas, et cetera, in order to make up any particular shortfall? And if they have had shortfalls, what type of shortfalls? If we could actually speak real dollars.

We track utilities separately and we’ve been able to cover our utility costs on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories with the budget provided. Talking to the deputy, we think we’re going to be tight this year, but other years we’ve been fine and we will continue to work to control those costs and find ways to reduce our costs through things like the Capital Asset Retrofit Fund in order to make sure that the budget we have continues to be suitable and adequate to cover our costs.

I’m hopeful this is the last question, probably as hopeful as you guys are. Does this also apply to, say, fuel, so our heating fuel? And the same question as the last one applies. If it does, maybe they could provide some clearer details if fuel is covered by this department. In other words, you pay all the bills and explain if there have been shortfalls over the last three years, and if there have been, how much money and where it has come from.

This utilities line covers electricity, fuel, water, garbage, sewage. I think that’s it. So far, like I said, in previous years we’ve had enough money to cover that. This year is going to be tight. We know with the spike in electricity costs that we’ll be pushing it and we will be coming to committee with a request for additional money to help us support the spike in electricity costs.

I don’t really have a question but I have more of a statement which is, I would hope that if the department sends their information to committee, I would hope that they would be based on, as I said earlier, it’s better and easier to gauge consumption levels than it is to, say, price levels. Because, as we know, the power bills increase but perhaps consumption has been contiguous, which demonstrates that that’s the problem. It’s not necessarily the technical money sense, although money is obviously the issue, but at least it

demonstrates stewardship under these principles. If you’re short because the power bills have increased by whatever percent, I mean, and you’re trying to work off the same budget, obviously your same budget does not extend far enough. More of an observation and a comment, but I’m hopeful that whatever information, if this request actually does show up, it does have that type of information as applied and where necessary.

This information is going to be available in the public report. It will be by consumption, but also by price, so that both of those pieces of information are there. The Member is right. I mean, consumption is one thing but prices vary, as we’ve seen with electricity here in the Northwest Territories as of late. That information will be in the public report for committee and for the public to review at large.

Yes. Sorry. I ran out of time the last time and I think the deputy minister had offered some holdback information on contracts and I didn’t get a clear commitment that they would forward that to committee.

Yes, we will provide that to the Member and committee.

Thank you, Minister Abernethy. Page 7-17. I have next on my list, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to ask the Minister about the infrastructure requirements or needs in our smaller communities. For example, our schools or Aurora College. Is there infrastructure information that we could look at in terms of a 10, 20 year, sort of, down the road? For example, my colleague from Nahendeh talked about the schools in his riding. They’re no different than the schools that we have in Colville Lake and we still expect our children to obtain a level of educational standards that is pretty difficult to beat at times. I appreciate the work that you’ve done in the last summer to get some of the modern facilities in our schools. Does the Department of Public Works have that type of information for some of the infrastructure needs that are going to be needed in our communities?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Abernethy.

Much of that information that I think the Member is looking for is within each department and their capital needs assessments. We provide technical advice, and when a build is required, we facilitate the build using the policies, procedures and the practices that exist within Public Works and Services. But for the actual plan, you’d probably need to get the specifics from each department.

If I’m correct, at one time Colville Lake was a target for a new school and then,

somehow, that fell off the Capital Infrastructure Plan. Is that information readily available to see if that was the case? Was there enough work there to say if Colville Lake did receive the funding, this is the type of school that they would need? That’s what I’m asking.

Nahendeh, Trout Lake, or Nahanni, if they are in a temporary school, I’m not too sure. Our definition in government is as temporary, but that school is in a temporary waiting stage, and they’re not in a, as we would think, a proper facility, education facility. Does that go to education to you guys? Or you guys have some information that this is what you could do a type of school with a number of students in that school? I’m just looking for some information. I know Education is coming up next, so I will probably want to ask the same question and try to get some information for the education estimates.

Mr. Chair, we provide technical advice to departments on building status, building condition, which is part of figuring out what the deferred maintenance is and figuring out what work needs to be done on a regular basis.

But the priorities come from the departments themselves on what items are going to fall into the capital plan. Once an item is in the capital plan, there’s often a planning study that’s required. We participate in those planning studies, but the needs of the department come from the department in a sense, and then we help with operational plans and functional design and schematic design and those types of things. We will then facilitate the build through contracts. As far as where a project fits within the capital plan, the department is FMB.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Committee, we are on 7-17, Public Works and Services, activity summary, asset management, operations expenditure summary, $92.341 million. Does committee agree?

Thank you. 7-18, Public Works and Services, information item, asset management, active positions. Are there any questions?

Thank you. Pages 7-20 and 7-21. Mr. Bromley.