Mr. Chairman, the question of the work we are involved in, for example, with MACA, we worked with them in preparation of the legislation they put together on the NWT portion.
On the bigger picture, involved with Executive and other departments on the approach to the federal government to see what work they would be doing. Unfortunately, as the Member pointed out, we haven’t had much success in that area. Our role is to work with land departments because they have a direct responsibility with the appropriate federal office and ministry and we help them with the preparation of those meetings as well as, in this case, with some of our own legislative work to make sure that we’ve covered our bases.
Thanks to the Premier for those comments. I just want to take him up on the other half of the question, which was under our newfound abilities to influence things and the agreement we seem to be getting from various federal Ministers that, yes, it’s a new game now. We have signed an AIP. We are moving towards that responsibility. What plan does this department have to move to make progress on this issue finally, recognizing that we have not been successful in the past but we have a new opportunity?
Since signing the agreement-in-principle I have had a discussion with a number of Ministers and the Prime Minister about working forward in a transition process of not being caught unaware as we have been in the past with some of the decisions made. In fact, the trespassing issue, I think much of that would end up being transferred to our area where we would be able to deal with the trespassing issue instead of trying to convince a federal department to deal with it. So that is one area that could be alleviated as we progress, probably more in the interim. As we begin to have those internal discussions with our staff and their staff about some of the ongoing issues, those are one of those we can add to our discussions.
Page 4-23, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, activity summary, intergovernmental relations, operations expenditure summary, $1.703 million.
Agreed.
Page 4-24, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, activity summary, intergovernmental relations, grants and contributions, grants, total grants, $350,000. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just wondering what the Aboriginal Intergovernmental Meetings Fund of $350,000, it looks like it’s been there for a long time. Surely this doesn’t need specific funding here. This must be just part of our way of doing business here. I’m wondering if the Minister, to be frank, I’m getting a lot of concerns about this so-called consultation unit, if this is essentially what it’s about, from other Aboriginal people who have other priorities. I’m just wondering whether this is there for the foreseeable future or if we can expect that these partners will just be a routine part of doing business and not require this extra funding.
Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The hope is at some point it will become a routine part of doing business, but as we endeavour to go down this process of setting up the regional leaders meetings, and that’s what this funding is tied to, it’s contribution to the seven regional groups so that they can take part in this. When we talk about doing these things, the issue of capacity and revenues comes into discussion and this is our way of helping them participate in our ongoing meetings.
I guess one last question on this. Do we get federal dollars on this to allow this to happen?
No, this is all our own contributions, Government of the Northwest Territories.
Next I have Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we’ve been going through this department we’ve been struggling to try and find some way for our Aboriginal government partners to come to the table. They say they need money. We say they can’t have it until they sign the AIP. Yet I’m looking at $350,000 here which is in the budget for this next fiscal year. I’d like to ask the Minister, can this money going to Aboriginal government organizations not be used to get them to the AIP devolution agreements discussion table?
Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The allocation is for the regional government meetings. We identify three meetings per year. We used to identify four but found the preparation between meetings and the scheduling to be difficult. So we cut it back down to three. The contributions here are to take part in those three meetings annually. As much as the agenda is set by all parties, it could clearly be an item that we have ongoing discussions around the devolution AIP issue. That aside, as I said through Executive earlier today, we would have to come back to this House for additional funding to deal with the commitment made on going to regions and communities to go through the AIP in detail.
Thanks to the Minister. I guess I’d like to know, then, what the focus of the regional leaders meetings is intended to be over this next year. If we have kind of gone through the AIP process, so to speak, and we will be moving on devolution elsewhere, what’s going to be the focus of these meetings as we go forward in the next fiscal year?
I think that’s the unique feature of this regional leaders approach. It hasn’t been the Government of the Northwest Territories that sets the agenda; it is a collaborative approach. We ask every region if they have a specific item or issue that they want to have dealt with. In some cases, we’ve dealt with the education piece or the Water Strategy or the Wildlife Act, to a certain degree, about who’s going to be involved and not and can they put the right people to the table. In fact, one of the agenda items we had as a regular update was the agreement-in-principle and at some meetings there was not much of an update because the first couple of years was very quiet. It was at the request of regional leaders to bring that item not just as an update but as a regular agenda item.
Page 4-24, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, activity summary, intergovernmental relations, grants and contributions, grants, total grants, $350,000.
Agreed.
Page 4-24, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, activity summary, intergovernmental relations, grants and contributions, total grants and contributions, $350,000.
Agreed.
Page 4-25, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, activity summary, information item, intergovernmental relations, active positions.
Agreed.
Page 4-26, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, information item, lease commitments – infrastructure.
Agreed.
Page 4-27, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, information item, work performed on behalf of others.
Agreed.
With that, we can turn back to the department summary on page 4-7, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, department summary, operations expenditure summary, $7.619 million.
Agreed.
Does committee agree that we’ve conclude the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations?
Agreed.
With that, I’d like to thank the Premier and his witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witnesses out.
What is the wish of committee? Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee would like to entertain the Department of Finance’s main estimates.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
With that I’d like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has any opening comments. Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to present the Department of Finance’s main estimates for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.
For 2011-2012 the Department of Finance is requesting a total operations budget of $100.784 million. This is a $9.316 million decrease from the 2011-2012 Main Estimates and represents an 8.5 percent reduction to funding levels. The items that effect this change are highlighted as follows:
Excluding the contribution funding provided to the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation, there is a net increase of $203,000 proposed for the Department of Finance’s operations budget. This represents a 0.5 percent increase over the 2010-2011 mains. This net increase is comprised of an investment of $552,000 in forced growth areas, primarily to implement Collective Agreement increases. This is partially offset by reductions totalling $349,000 that are associated with the sunsetting of one-time funding provided in 2010-2011 to complete planning, design and transition work related to the implementation of the Financial Shared Services Centre and for the Information Security Initiative.
A net decrease of $9.519 million is associated with the contribution funding provided to the NWT Housing Corporation. This net decrease is comprised of an increase of $2.521 million in forced growth and strategic initiative funding that is more than offset by a reduction of $12.04 million associated with the revised manner in which Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s share of the Public Housing Rental Subsidy program funding is recorded. As the responsibility for the delivery of the PHRS Program now rests with the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation the CMHC share of the program costs is no longer flowed through the GNWT and, therefore, is no longer recorded as an appropriation with a corresponding revenue offset. The CMHC share of program costs is provided directly to the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. The Department of Finance has no direct authority over this contribution funding other than providing the corporation with its operating cash flow.
The department continues to be guided by its strategic action plan which provides multi-year direction for the department. This plan includes two overarching strategic priorities: fiscal sustainability and modern management. These strategic priorities are critical to the long-term success of the GNWT and guide departmental initiatives and action items.
Each of the business activities of the department provides a foundation for all other activities of government through raising revenues, managing expenditures, protecting assets, providing critical fiscal, financial and economic information, and promoting accountability. In developing the Department of Finance’s 2011-2012 Main Estimates primary consideration was given to the key objectives requiring action by the Department of Finance in support of the government’s strategic direction including:
continuing the implementation of a Financial Shared Services Centre, including a shared services procurement model;
implementing a new Knowledge Management Strategy;
continuing the process of modernizing the government’s financial management framework, including further work on SAM and rewriting the Financial Administration Act and its associated regulations and policies;
continuing to seek input on budget and revenue options.
As the government’s lead revenue department, the revenues managed by the Department of Finance are projected to total approximately $1.25 billion or about 92 percent of the total GNWT revenues being forecast for 2011-2012 fiscal year. This represents a 4.3 percent increase from the revised 2010-2011 forecasts and is primarily attributable to a projected increase in the grant from Canada of $76 million and a $6 million projected increase in other transfer payments offset by a $31 million projected decrease in taxation revenues.
That concludes my opening remarks.
At this time I’d like to ask the Minister if he will be bringing in his witnesses.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Does the committee agree that the Minister can bring in his witnesses?
Agreed.
Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witnesses in.
For the record, Mr. Minister, can you introduce your witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Margaret Melhorn, deputy minister of Finance; Mr. Jamie Koe, director of policy and planning.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Welcome witnesses. At this time I would like to ask if there are any general comments for the Department of Finance. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m happy to see the department staying with a tight budget here. I guess we’ll be hearing more about SAM and what the latest millions of dollars being spent on SAM will be. Not happy to see our dollars continually being poured into that, but perhaps someday we’ll hear about some efficiencies represented there.
I wanted to ask, though, just the 4.3 percent increase in 2010-11 forecasts, and I’m talking about revenue now. The projected increase in the grant from Canada of $76 million. I’m wondering what was it that caused a revision in that. I thought we knew pretty firmly what that federal transfer would be and I’m just wondering what caused that bump-up of $76 million. Thank you.
Ms. Melhorn.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The $76 million represents the increase from 2010-11 to 2011-12. It’s the annual increase in the grant that is driven by the formula financing escalator primarily. Thank you.
I realize that. It just was sort of portrayed as a bit of a surprise and I wondered... Perhaps it wasn’t a surprise and perhaps it’s just an explanation of the increase. I guess I’ll just drop it.
Any other general comments? Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of quick comments on two areas in particular. One is the Shared Services Centre that has been on the radar for the last couple of years. I haven’t heard too much of it lately but I’ve had a couple of constituents asking me what is the status, is it happening soon, do we have to worry about being centralized, and I, quite frankly, didn’t know the answers. If I can get some specifics on the nature of the Shared Services Centre. Where are we in the process? Is it happening? Is it coming down the pipes?
The other area that I’ve had some concern about is the borrowing limit of the Northwest Territories. Quite frankly, it seems two things are going on: our MP has put forward a bill in front of the House of Commons to have our borrowing limit increased and at the same time the Government of Canada is doing a review of our borrowing limit. I’m curious if the Minister can give a sense as to which avenue we are supporting. Are we supporting the bill from our Member of Parliament or are we supporting the process that is underway which involves trying to identify or trying to encourage the federal government not to include self-financing or self-liquidating debt against our borrowing limit? If we can get them to not count those things, I don’t think we need a borrowing limit increase. I think we would have lots of room to do the things that we need to do in the best interests of the people of the Northwest Territories. Just two areas of interest and I’ll bring them up during detail, but I’m certainly interested to know what’s happening with shared services and where this government officially stands on our borrowing limit and which avenue to improve things in that area we’re supporting.
