Mr. Chairman, not to be picky, of course, but in Gametì, there’s a gymnasium and it’s funded through Capital Investment Expenditures, not O&M. Maybe the Finance Minister can explain the difference — why we’ve now agreed it’s not right, it’s not wrong through O&M; now, we’re funding through capital. Can he explain why it’s good for one but not for the other?
Mr. Chairman, this one is the result of being offset by a reduction to the Capital Investment Expenditures. So this is, again, a process of back and forth in how we deal with the construction of that facility.
Again, I wish to reaffirm, not just to the Member who represents the community but anyone else out there who’s listening and who cares. The fact is — and it’s not a criticism of the project — now we have the example where the other applies.
Again, now I’ve bought into the Finance Minister’s important song and dance and passionate plea that this is the way we do things; this is way we’ve done things since 1997; and now we do this project through Capital Investments. So just when I get it clear that if we’re going to build a gym in Gametì that I suspect belongs to the community, now if we go look at the O&M budget, it’s not going to be there.
So I guess I’m searching for some consistent practice — again, transparency on the process — so if anyone wanted to look this up, they would know where to look this up in the budget.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the $250,000 is an addition to the original infrastructure contribution amount, and that is why this one is treated in this manner. It’s not that this is the total amount. This is adding to the original cost of that facility, so we have to add it to this piece. Again, it’s the back and forth of O&M to capital again and dealing with who would own the asset when the work is done.
Mr. Chairman, can the Finance Minister clarify for the record who would own this asset, and maybe explain to me how that would be different in the case of Nahanni Butte, where, as I understand it, they would own the infrastructure?
Mr. Chairman, as I said, this is an additional amount of funding that goes toward the increased costs of this project. So we have to account for it in this manner, as a Vote 1 expenditure, but it’s coming out as a Vote 2, being the capital. It’s a top-up to the original amount to complete that project. But it will be, in Gametì, an infrastructure project, with the asset to be owned by the community government of Gametì.
I’m sorry to belabour this point, but if anyone takes a look at this, everything he’s said doesn’t apply to the example we talked about before. Whether we’ve topped up the project, it’s my point of view, again, that we’re not following consistent patterns here.
I’ll say it the same way I closed off my last point. It appears to be a lone position, but again, it doesn’t necessarily mean my point is incorrect, in that not everyone on this side of the House is screaming, “clarity, consistency.”
Anyway, I’ll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. We could be here all day belabouring this. The fact is, I’m just looking for consistency.
Mr. Chairman, the process that I’ve been discussing is the process that is used. At the end of the day, when the asset is owned by a community…. When we establish the program, for example, under capital, and it’s transferred over to communities, we have to transfer it to O&M.
The Gametì school is going to be an asset owned by the Gametì Band Council. The Nahanni Butte community gym is currently identified in the capital until the time the community can legally assume that asset. Then it would have to be transferred over.
Regional Operations, not previously authorized: negative $575,000. Agreed?
Regional Operations, negative $575,000 approved.
Total Municipal and Community Affairs, not previously authorized: $1,249,000. Agreed?
Total Municipal and Community Affairs, $1,249,000 approved.
Page 12, Public Works and Services, Operations Expenditures, Directorate, not previously authorized: negative $429,000. Agreed?
Public Works and Services, Operations Expenditures, Directorate, negative $429,000 approved.
Asset Management, not previously authorized: $465,000. Agreed?
Asset Management, $465,000 approved.
Total Department, not previously authorized: $36,000. Agreed?
Total Department, $36,000 approved.
Moving on to page 13, Health and Social Services, Operations Expenditures, Program Delivery Support, not previously authorized: negative $86,000. Agreed?
Health and Social Services, Operations Expenditures, Program Delivery Support, $86,000 approved.
Health Services Programs, not previously authorized: $6,036,000. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m a little dismayed at the amount of this item: the $739,000 for the increase in contributions to the Hay River Health and Social Services Authority pension plan. It seems to me, and from what I understand, that this is an extra contribution that’s been required in the past several years. I’m wondering whether or not we can soon expect that these employees will become part of the G.N.W.T. public service so we can avoid having this extra expense.
Mr. Chairman, this area is indeed popping up — the existing pension plan — as their plan is different from the G.N.W.T. plan. The employees there are in fact employees of the Hay River health authority.
There have been ongoing discussions over the last number of years of looking to pull that authority into the G.N.W.T. The decision hasn’t been made in that area, but work has been looked at. They would have to estimate the full cost of bringing employees into the G.N.W.T. It would have to follow a business planning process.
Just a follow-up comment. I understand it’s going to cost us some money to bring these guys into our public service. But I think, in the long run, it is going to save money. I would encourage the Minister of Finance to encourage his colleagues to get this underway and spend the money to save the money.
Mr. Chairman, as I stated, this action would have to be undertaken through our business planning process. The Minister of Health and Social Services, along with FMBS, would look at the impact of that decision, and it would have to come forward as part of a planning position.
Mr. Bromley: Just one more follow-up to that.
Mr. Chairman, again, the departments would have to justify some practices in the process or actions that would be looked at in trying to achieve bringing that grouping to the public service. Again, the estimates have been looked at in the past. It should fluctuate depending on the criteria that they use, the existing pension plan.
The way we pay employees and contributions would see us with an increase in expenditures beyond this amount and it would then be incorporated into an ongoing amount. One benefit would be that they would all be N.W.T. employees at that point.
Health Services Programs, not previously authorized: $6,036,000.
Health Services Programs, $6,036,000 approved.
Supplementary Health Programs, not previously authorized: $1,607,000.
Supplementary Health Programs, $1,607,000 approved.
Community Health Programs, not previously authorized: $1,207,000.
Community Health Programs, $1,207,000 approved.
Total Department, not previously authorized: $8,764,000. Agreed?
Total Department, $8,764,000 approved.
Page 14, Justice Operations, Services to Government, not previously authorized: $138,000.
Justice, Operations Expenditures, Services to Government, $138,000 approved.
Law Enforcement, not previously authorized: $280,000.
Law Enforcement, $280,000 approved.
Legal Aid Services, not previously authorized: $403,000. Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Chairman, I am looking for some detail on this process where we are adding money. I think, as I understood earlier, it’s federal base money, so whether it’s catching up to the times and actual costs or not, I just want to make sure this money is going to those who need it the most.
I want to find out what services have been increased. If we’re not increasing services, I’d like to know what has been tamed down, if it’s paying debt. Anyway, I want to know the details of the $403,000.
Mr. Chairman, this amount, as the Member has pointed out, is an additional amount from a federal program that is incorporated into this process. I’m informed that the money will be useful in the recruitment and payment of family law lawyers to enable the lawyers to travel into communities prior to court parties arriving. So it gives them some advance opportunities to meet with those that are involved in the court process.
That is one of the areas. As we’re informed, it is not new money. The funding was approved for three years and sunsetted by the federal government, and they’re recently renewed it.
Mr. Chairman, changing gears but on the same subject, you said recruitment of family lawyers. Would the Minister be able to provide the details of the staffing levels of those who are were practising family law in the legal aid system. How much would this $403,000 change or add? Would that give us one lawyer or two lawyers? Would that give us a full complement, et cetera?
Mr. Chairman, we don’t have that level of detail at this time. We could work with the Department of Justice to provide that at a later term.
Legal Aid Services, not previously authorized: $403,000.
Legal Aid Services, $403,000 approved.
Courts, not previously authorized: $1,729,000. Agreed?
Courts, $1,729,000 approved.
Going on to page 15, Justice continued, Operations Expenditures, Community Justice and Corrections. Mr. Hawkins.
Sorry, Mr. Chairman. You flew through page 14 a little too quickly. I had a question on a couple of items on page 14.
Move back to page 14?
Agreed.
Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Chairman, I’ll start with this one. It looks like we have a $33,000 increase to fund increases associated with salary and life and disability insurance for our Territorial Court judges. If we ask ourselves aloud: how many judges do we have in the Territorial system? We have four. Over 12 months, that works out to be a lot of money as an increase just for insurance.
I’m just wondering maybe if the Minister can break down the detail. It looks like almost $600 per judge per month as an increase. That seems like a lot of money just for an insurance sum. Did something change? Is something different? And how much is this policy costing us?
Mr. Chairman, this is broken down to $43,000, made up of an increase in the annual salaries of $14,000 and in life/disability insurance of approximately $29,000.
One of the things we look at is trying to keep the same rank as a lawyer or judges in other jurisdictions. We also work through the Remuneration Commission that is established, and this is the way we do that. Again, it deals with their court schedule and the amount of travel there would be when they fly into communities. I think that’s one of the reasons why the insurance piece is being dealt with.
The Minister is correct in the sense that when you take the $43,000 and you take out the $14,000 for salary increases, you’re left with the $29,000. But the $29,000 divided by four judges and 12 months works out to almost precisely a $562 increase in insurance fees. I’m just trying to get a sense of…. I don’t know anybody’s insurance that costs $562 for life. This is an additional increase. I’m just trying to make sense of this. It’s difficult for me to go out there and look people in the eye and say, “Well, we’ve just bumped up the insurance for judges for another almost $562.”
I want to know what’s wrong, what’s changed. How much are we normally paying for insurance per judge per month to justify it? That’s a huge increase. I couldn’t tell you what liability and life insurance costs — I’d be guessing — but I’m sure that’s the cost of a whole family’s life insurance. It just seems like a lot of money.
Mr. Chairman, the area this deals with is…. From my understanding, there are three existing judges on the circuit, and as well, the life and disability deals with two retired judges. As well, this is all handled through the Territorial Court Act. As the G.N.W.T., we do not set the salaries and the benefits for judges in the Northwest Territories.
Would the Minister be willing to provide the details of the questions I’ve asked earlier about the details of what their insurance is, the premiums, things like that — those types of details? I won’t repeat every one of those questions, but would he be willing to provide that detail to me?
I’ll go on to my next question, which is the $133,000, after he’s done.
We will work with the Department of Justice to get that information.
With good reason, the judges have an independent commission to review their salaries, and I stress “with good reason.” If I understand it correctly, it goes back to an act in 1998.
As I've explained to the Minister before, it seems as if we've hired the most expensive professionals to review the salaries of the most expensive professionals. Then we have to have someone to sit on both sides — who again is a very expensive consultant — to come up with a simple percentage. I don't belittle the actual salary, but it seems like a very expensive process to come up with a percentage just to say “Increase their salaries.” I heard someone say, “Let’s throw away all this gobbledygook and just give them the $133,000.” Chop it up four ways, and we are probably at their increase anyway.
What's restricting us from finding some way to attach the judges’ remuneration to some type of cost-of-living process — independent of the MLAs, independent of the public service — whereby we don't have to renegotiate everything every three years or so? It would probably save a lot of time if we passed legislation that effectively would do what this negotiation process does.
In this area we must be cautious, as the judiciary is considered a third arm of government. There is the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. The process established, as the Member pointed out, is one that has been in place since 1998. Every four years a commission is established and reviews the compensation for judges. That work is provided to the Minister of Justice for their consideration, to be brought to a business plan process for any adjustments.
This $133,000 breaks into three categories: commission members for this year, ’07-08, $58,400; commission legal counsel, $21,150; Territorial judges’ legal counsel, $53,788 — for the total of $133,000.
My point — which was made at the start of this, which I referenced — stands very clearly. We're spending a lot of money to talk about the most expensive people on our payroll by hiring expensive consultants to challenge and negotiate with more expensive consultants. I wouldn't doubt that these expensive consultants’ time is worth the money that they billed for, but it’s a process that seems to cost us money.
When we talk about times like these, where we have to find ways to be creative and succinct in how we can find ways to save money, a three-page piece of legislation could clear this up. I doubt that would cost this Assembly $133,000. If anything, it would provide certainty to the judges and their system, whereby they would get an appropriate increase that is attached to a normal process, again outside of the areas I talked about.
I reaffirm what the Premier — I should say the FMB Minister at this time; it’s the same guy, which is confusing some days — I reaffirm what he said, which is, yes, it is a third arm; it’s independent; and it’s meant to be independent and not tied to what we do. That being said, we could streamline and simplify the process and give it the respect it’s due, rather than sending negotiators off every four years at $133,000.
Although I don't have the tally from the one they did four years ago, the way prices continue to go, I can guarantee that the one that's due four years from now will be more than $133,000. And we'll be looking back and saying, “Gee, three or four pieces of paper would have cost us very little, compared to this process.”
I would ask the Minister: would he commit to evaluating this situation to see if they could create some type of discussion paper to review the situation and see if there’s a way we could do this in a simpler process? Again, to reaffirm certainly for the justice system that they will be paid appropriately, but we can get it on track where it does it by itself.
Mr. Chairman, this process, as the Members have discussed, we would gladly look at it if the committee were to make recommendations in this area. Then we could put the energy into it. Otherwise this process will continue to be used during the business planning process. There’s opportunity for Members to make recommendations and committees to make recommendations in this area when we get into the business planning stage.
Well, I’m going to challenge the FMB Minister at this time by saying: when you’re a decision maker — and you are the decision maker, by the way, in this particular case — you don’t need the committee to tell you to think about something. I think it’s well within your authority to look at and evaluate the process. When we talk about stepping forward in our $135 million process of reductions and streamlining and course correction, this is a very simple process we could discuss. I guarantee you it wouldn’t cost $133,000.
I would ask the Minister, once again: would he take it back for further consideration and maybe take a chance to review his thoughts before he provides the final answer?
Though, yes, I sit as the Minister Responsible for the Financial Management Board Secretariat, we still do operate in a consensus-style government. I seek the input of Members on a regular basis about how we do business.
