Thank you, Madam Chair. The act and the regulations define commercial production. At this point in time, if a party wishes to enter into commercial production for the purpose of sale, they are required to register under the Egg Marketing Regulations. That requires the party to deal with the council.
At this point in time, we have about 123,000 layers allocated and 100 percent of that quota less approximately about 6,000 layers has been allocated to parties across the Northwest Territories. There remain a small allocation of 6,000 layers for the purpose of interest of any other producers or new entrants that wish to get into the market.
At this point in time, on the specifics of a party here in Yellowknife, I’m not aware of the commercial operation, but those opportunities exist still in the Northwest Territories and the party would deal with the council to seek that authority. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Maybe I’ll say it for the record, the layers are chickens that lay eggs, which sounds obvious, but that said, if anyone follows this closely as I do they may have wondered what that is.
If the deputy minister could elaborate a little more on the council, their role, who’s on the council, explain where the council’s authority comes from and what the relationship is with the general public. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I should have referred to the board. The members of the Egg Producers Board as of 2012 are Jackie Milne, Roy Fabien, Michael Wallington, John Penner, Glenn Wallington and Bruce Ramage. They make up the Egg Producers Board, and they review the issue of allocation and responsibility for compliance with the regulations pursuant to the act. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Are they all out of the Hay River area? What type of public relationship do they have in the sense of letting people know what they do, who they are, who will they meet? Are we really talking about a board that governs production just in Hay River and would they qualify as a territorial board in that regard, or are they just a Hay River board looking after a niche market?
No, not all are residents of Hay River. Chief Fabien, of course, with the Katlodeeche band; Mr. Penner is an operator out of British Columbia who currently has operational authority for the barn in Hay River; Mr. Ramage is an Alberta resident but has previous ownership of the barn in Hay River; Mike Wallington and Glen Wallington, of course, out of Hay River; and Jack Milne, with the agriculture community in Hay River as well. Their responsibility, as I said, is to oversee adherence to the requirements for managing the quota in the Northwest Territories. The Minister makes those appointments, and in terms of process, they continue to provide reports to the department and an annual report is tabled in this Legislature under the Agricultural Products Act as required under legislation. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just one last question in this regard. Are they seen as a territorial board for egg producing or are they seen as a local micro-board looking after a smaller region? I would just hate to think that somebody expressed interest from the Sahtu to start raising layers and the Hay River-stacked board says no to protect their interest in the market. I guess, to demonstrate public confidence and surety, how do you describe the board in its role at the territorial level? Are they a local microcosm board or are they a territorial board?
They represent a Northwest Territories board overseeing the entire territorial egg production arrangements. Thank you.
Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we leave this page of 12-9 on general revenue, I’m just looking for inconsistencies in reporting years and looking at patterns. I notice in the interest earned in the NWT Opportunities Fund in 2011-2012, there was nothing noted. Yet, in 2012-2013, $1.043 million and again in 2013-14, nothing recorded. Can the Minister indicate why the pattern and maybe an explanation as to why we see only the one entry in the 2012-13 Main Estimates.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That would be as a result of a one-time exit of interest earned through the NWT Opportunities Fund, but for a more detailed response, we can go to the deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Vician.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s shown as a one-time revenue to the Government of the Northwest Territories. As we spoke previously, revenue earned by the NWT Opportunities Fund is considered separately from the revenues from the GNWT. As part of the decision to invest part of the retained earnings of the NWT Opportunities Fund into economic investment programs for the GNWT, a payment was made by the NWT Opportunities Fund in 2012-13 and that payment is hereby reflected as $1.043 million. That funding was received by the GNWT and shown as revenue in the Department of ITI’s budget, but it’s treated as revenue to the general revenue to the Government of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vician. Mr. Dolynny.
So just a point of clarification, this $1.040 million here, would this not be considered interest charged to the proponent, let’s say, who had access to these opportunity funds? Thank you.
No, Madam Chair. This would be treated as strictly revenue for the GNWT. Interest earned by the NWT Opportunities Fund would be reflected in the income statements of the Opportunities Fund which are accounted for independently. They are recorded on the public accounts as a stand-alone entity and, in doing so, they would not show up at that point. The overall revenues would show up as interest earned on that particular financial statement. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I’m still a bit unclear here exactly where the source of this interest, where it’s coming from and why just the one-time insertion in the main estimates. Can you explain again so I can follow the deputy minister? Thank you, Madam Chair.
The NWT Opportunities Fund was established as an independent entity. Obviously under the direction and management of the Financial Management Board, but in doing so, a separate entity and accounting for as an independent entity on the public accounts in a separate account. Interest earned by that entity with its loan management and portfolio was reported in that income stated. Under the FMB’s direction, any retained earnings would be invested in that fund but at some point in time would have to be remitted or returned to the GNWT under its economic plan. In the case of 2012-13, the $1.040 million was paid to the GNWT from the NWT Opportunities Fund as part of the earnings it received over time from the interest on one particular loan and interest earned by the overall account by deposit. So it really is two different accounts and to reflect the accounting, you would have to refer to the stand-alone financial statements of the NWT Opportunities Fund. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Much clearer, Madam Chair. The point I have under my assumption, there was only one proponent who had access to the Opportunities Fund during the life of this fund and the only way that I can see that that money was derived into this fund, in terms of earnings or revenue, was by means of interest. How can just one year have interest-bearing revenue when this loan was over a number of years? Would this not be reported as multi-year, very similar amounts of interest or straight line interest calculations on the amount borrowed or lent to that one proponent? If I can get clarification why we only see one entry in those three years and the explanation to what about other entries to the interest charges of that loan.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Interest was derived from the Opportunities Fund. Yes, there is the one big loan but there are a number of other investments through the Opportunities Fund that would have built up the interest. This is a portion of that interest that was taken out to be used for the Economic Opportunities Strategy and the Mineral Development Strategy, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Mr. Dolynny, anything further?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Would the Minister characterize this as a balloon payment that came and originated from the Opportunities Fund?
It was a payment when the government decided to roll up the NWT Opportunities Fund. That loan came back and the interest that accrued on it was in the account. So, yes, the answer would be yes.
Thank you. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just very quickly, would the Minister know off hand what amount was not transferred to ITI that was gained as interest? Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Bromley. Minister Ramsay.
Yes, Madam Chair. There’s approximately $7 million that remains.
Was there an internal competition for these dollars? Obviously you had a couple of projects here, economic mineral development strategies. How did that work? Thank you.
There wasn’t a competition, no. The stipulation for interest earned through the NWT Opportunities Fund was to be earmarked for economic opportunities and pursuits in the territory. We are currently putting together a proposal through FMB to look at what we do with the remaining balance that’s there. As soon as we get that proposal complete, we’d certainly look at taking it to FMB and Members will also get to see that proposal.
Thank you.
Committee, page 12-9, any further questions? Page 12-10, Industry, Tourism and Investment, information item, active position summary. Page 12-11, Industry, Tourism and Investment, information item, active positions, Business Development Investment Corporation.
Agreed.
Page 12-13, Industry, Tourism and Investment, activity summary, corporate management, operations expenditure summary, $7.908 million. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Madam Chair. What we’re seeing in a lot of departments, especially in the corporate management sector, I like to refer to as performance measures. I assume these would be the same performance measures that could be possibly governed and used for bonuses or performance bonuses. Does the Department of ITI have any specific performance measures that it does use for its corporate management structure?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Vician.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Under the current performance review process, executive managers, managers and staff have established performance objectives that are identified each year. Those performance objectives are evaluated on an annual basis and assessed in the responsibility area that the respective director, manager or staff person is responsible for. For example, an executive in the tourism area would be measured against the performance with regard to specific results regarding effort and results pertaining to attracting tourism visitation to the North and tourism spent in the North. In each case there are performance measures that would reflect the appropriate responsibility area.
In the spirit of transparency and accountability, whether this question is asked here or asked in public accounts, how are these performance measures being able to be communicated to standing committee as a way of keeping track of the performance grading of the corporate management of this department?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve never seen that level of detail at committee but the suggestion is one that it’s the first time I’ve heard it. Maybe we could go to Deputy Minister Vician for a response.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Vician.
Thank you, Madam Chair. At this point it’s my understanding that the performance measurement process is internal to the department. So in the case of any given department, like ITI, the supervisor and the subordinate would go through the performance review process on an annual basis. That reporting would be referred to through the chain to the deputy minister, who reviews the reviews themselves and identifies and reviews the objectives for the period, then those become part of the personnel file. There’s no further disclosure of that information outside of what I call the standard performance measures that the GNWT makes public in terms of expectations on performance management in financial and other managerial human resources areas.
Thank you, Mr. Vician. Mr. Dolynny.
Just so we’re perfectly clear, I don’t think the Member here is asking for HR-related performance measures in general. I think I’m looking for overall performance measures as a means of department activity under the guise of corporate management. Can we get, maybe, some idea that if we can work towards looking at the transparency of some of those larger picture items for the performance of management so that we know, as Regular Members, are all the initiatives that were put forth to corporate management given the fact this is a fairly detailed department, that we too as Members can see and track the performance and evaluate the performance, not the individual HR performance of individuals but the overall performance of, let’s say, ITI in general? That’s my question.
Of course we’ll be more than pleased to provide additional details. We assess our results on an annual basis in a composite way as part of the business planning process. At the end of each fiscal year, a process is initiated with regard to reviewing how the objectives that were set out in the business plan on an annual basis were achieved. We report those reports to this Legislature through the business planning process and, of course, during the committee review of our business plans, are there to account for our results in the past year’s performance. Obviously more than pleased to improve on that process if information is needed further and, of course, through the Minister providing committee updates on particular issues, there’s more information to be had at that point too.
No further questions.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The issue that Mr. Dolynny brings up is a good one. I think it’s a discussion that all Members probably should have. From my perspective, we stand up as Ministers and if a department’s falling down in an area or has questions in an area, we answer that on the floor of the House or through the business plans. That has been the process. It’s been political, questions asked, issues addressed through the department and that goes down through the corporate management of the department to whatever manager or director is responsible for a certain area. If we want to delve a little bit deeper, that’s an interesting aspect. It’s the first I’ve heard of it. We could certainly discuss it a little bit further.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Page 12-13, Industry, Tourism and Investment, activity summary, corporate management, operations expenditure summary, $7.908 million.
Agreed.
