Debates of June 1, 2005 (day 6)

Total department, not previously authorized, $3.569 million.

Agreed.

Thank you. Page 27, Health and Social Services, capital investment expenditures, health services programs, special warrants, $577,000.

Agreed.

Not previously authorized, $3.260 million.

Agreed.

I have on the list Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the $505,000 that makes up part of the $3.283 million for the renovations to Dene K’onia, I would like to ask the Minister if he has a copy of the Financial Administration Manual, directive 302 with him today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not with me in the House right now.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’ll make a copy available for the Minister, if that’s possible, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Voytilla can get a copy as well.

I wonder what happens -- and this is the first time I have been faced with this -- when a department and a Minister go outside of the guidelines set out in an FAM directive, specifically directive 302, which states under 5.4 quite explicitly that, “…departments are expected to exercise sound judgement in reporting and consulting on any adjustments…especially if the adjustment is of significance to a community.” Part c) of that says “No new capital projects, over $250,000, are to be established until the responsible Minister has consulted in writing with the affected Member(s) of the Legislative Assembly and appropriate Standing Committee.”

Also, Mr. Chairman, under part d) it states, “When a department makes any adjustment to a capital project that significantly affects the scope (e.g., $100,000 or 20 percent of the project budget, whichever is greater)…the responsible Minister will” -- and that’s the big word here -- “advise the appropriate MLA and Standing Committee.”

Mr. Chairman, it’s obvious that this did not happen. I wonder if the Minister can tell us today what happens when a Minister circumvents the FAM directive as set out in FAM directive 302. What is the fallout when that happens because I haven’t seen it happen before? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, the Member is looking at the area of where we have made a decision and transfers are occurring. In a sense, the change in scope is what we are coming forward now with. The dollars are still identified for the project under the existing terms, as was approved by this Assembly. It is now coming to this Assembly for the changes that are being requested.

As I stated earlier, when this issue, as I laid out earlier on record, the capital acquisition plan from 2002-03, 2003-04 to 2004-05, the substantiation given for carryovers and, at that time, being identified that the department was looking at possible alternate options that were available to the department. I haven’t myself in my tenure as Finance Minister, come across a situation where we have had to call this into question and deal with a Minister that has not followed the guidelines. So I can’t tell you from my tenure as Finance Minister what needs to be done. Obviously if an infraction has occurred, they would take it to FMB and have a discussion there and discuss what level or degree of what may have happened and discuss the appropriate action that would have to occur. From past experiences, I would have to go to the author of all of this, I believe, Mr. Voytilla. For the tenure I have had as Finance Minister, we have not come across this or called a Minister on not following the rules that are in front of us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I tend to see things really black and white. When I read section 5.4 d) on FAM directive 302, I read timing of the project. “…the responsible Minister will advise the appropriate MLA and Standing Committee.” Clearly, Mr. Chairman, this did not happen. It’s obvious to me and obvious to some of my colleagues here today that this did not occur, absolutely, unequivocally did not happen. I think somebody owes us an explanation as to why this did not happen. It’s set out in here, it should have happened and it didn’t happen. The project disappeared from the capital budget for an entire fiscal year and nobody let the MLA in the riding know that that was happening. Nobody informed the Standing Committee on Social Programs that this was happening and somebody owes us an explanation, Mr. Chairman, and I would like the Minister to give us that explanation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. At this time, I would caution Members not to refer to documents that are not before the House. Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, the money did not disappear. The authority to spend the money was given and the money was not spent. The authority remains on that project and the substantiation of that project, and was identified in the infrastructure acquisition plan in the 2004-05 one under CAP 14. It was identified, it's there, it hasn't changed, it has not disappeared and remains. I guess that's where the grey area that some have referred to may be setting up, because the money is still there under that project. It has not been taken away, it has not been removed, it didn't lapse.

Every year from 2002-03 or 2003-04 it has been asked and has received approval to be carried over and carried over again. So this project has been carried over for two years, and now, at this point, the Minister has come forward and requested a change to the project. But the dollars are still identified under that project.

Until this House approves otherwise, the dollars will remain under that project. If the Minister then is not going to proceed with that work, then he would have to inform the committees and Members why he's not proceeding with that project. But until we get authority for the change, it has not changed.

The direction at first phase has been brought forward to Cabinet and has been agreed to move in this direction, and now we have to seek the approvals. So it hasn't changed, the money hasn't disappeared, it's still there identified under children's Territorial Treatment Centre, Yellowknife. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I can argue all day with the Minister about what the scope of the project actually entails. Mr. Chairman, when I see a project at $2.4 million that was going to take place in Yellowknife in the Member for Great Slave's constituency and that project moves a seven-hour drive away, a half-hour flight away south of Great Slave Lake, obviously the scope of that project has got to change, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering if the Minister can tell us what his definition of the scope of the project really is, and why the Member wasn't informed and the standing committee wasn't informed when it's obvious the scope of the project changed.

We're talking about apples and oranges here, Mr. Chairman. It's not the same project. It's obvious to anybody that it's not the same project. The scope absolutely, positively changed and why weren't we informed? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Finally we agree. The scope in the project has changed and that is why we are coming back to this House for approval for that change. Up until that approval happens, the authority given to the Assembly remains with that project. The reason we're coming back now is because a request has been made and we've agreed at the first stage, but we need the authority of the Assembly to move beyond this next stage. If the Assembly does not approve of it, then the project, as the department is trying to put in place now, will not proceed until it receives approval of this Assembly.

I guess there's some difference there in the sense of when that notification should go out. But the fact is the scope is changing and that is why we're back here at the table, have come through the supplementary appropriation process, brought it to committee to inform them of this, and now into Committee of the Whole. Should we tighten up on this and have the Ministers go before committees as they are planning to do this? I guess that's something we can have further discussion on and it may be a bit more appropriate at that point. But I'm informed that every time this was requested for carryover, that it was identified that the department was looking at alternative options that may come along. So the specific location wasn't identified until recently, which is now kicked into this process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Next I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On that item I agree also that the proposal now to move this to another community and to use the money to renovate another building is definitely a change in scope. But I want to also point out that when the Minister gets the money from this Assembly and chooses not to spend, that definitely is a change in scope; a change in the nature of the project.

Hear! Hear!

We vote in this House, giving the authority to Ministers to spend the money as they requested. There was money approved to renovate this building and if the department chooses not to do that, that's a change in the scope of the work.

You bet.

Inaction and omission is also inaction. The Minister is getting around this rule by saying well we're coming to you now and we're saying we want to do it in another place. I don't think that is what the spirit of what this rule is.

I've always thought that myself, as a Member of this Assembly, comes here and we review our budgets, we debate our budgets, and we vote on that. I have to have comfort when I'm leaving this place that the money that I voted on will be spent the way it was voted on. The government should not be allowed to just hold off and not even have to bring to us any explanation as to why they could not spend that money. I could understand if now the Minister comes up and says we tried to renovate the Yellowknife TTC and we found that it's not worth renovating or that it would cost twice more than what it is, or whatever. If there's a construction, structural or rational reasons as to why they cannot spend this money and they had to lapse it, I could understand how then they would have to come and ask us for permission. But surely the spirit of us voting for projects here couldn't be that we're just giving them blanket authority. You know, you could come and ask us for $2.5 million or $5 million, whatever, to build a specific project, but we don't really care whether you build it or not. We don't care if you lapse it for the whole year. Surely that's not what we're saying.

In November, after we have approved this, you can't be saying we just found this money; this money for this building that didn't get spent. I think we'll just move it around. All we have to do is just go back and ask for the Assembly to approve the same money all over again. Surely that's not an ethical thing to do. That can't be what was meant here, and the Minister should appreciate that we have every reason to interpret this rule in that way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I guess we could go around the clock on this. I have stated that the process, the guidelines that are here, we use when we make changes to a project. Whether the Member feels we're just using it to get around to say this is the formal process that we're now using…I've spoken to the Minister. He has indicated to me that when this project came up and why it hadn't proceeded in that year, why they needed to carry it over and re-identify it, it was identified at that point to the committee members that there were alternative options also being looked at.

Maybe we can have the Minister of Health and Social Services respond to that directly. Instead of hearing it from my mouth, we'll go right to the Minister on this one. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Minister Miltenberger.

Michael Miltenberger

Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this issue has been on the books, as the Minister has indicated, for a number of years going back to the 14th Assembly. If records were checked, I have clear recollections of discussing this issue and the concerns about not wanting to renovate the existing building because of its age and state of disrepair, and of looking at other options starting way back with potential options of Somba K'e as an example. We did that year after year. Every time we met with committee we reviewed the mains. This year the circumstances were such that there was a decision made in March. The money has always been in the budget, we just carried it over with the clear intention of having a facility that is better suited for the need that it is designed for. There was a decision to be made and a decision made considering a number of factors: program capacity, the government’s stated position on decentralization and opportunities to do that. The fact that the program capacity, while slightly better in Yellowknife, it’s still clear that Hay River could easily deliver this program. So a decision was made because there was a facility or infrastructure in Hay River that was in better condition with more life expectancy to move the program. At the end of the contract, it’s a contract program. With those factors in mind, that’s the decision that was made. We have been trying to do this by the Members working with Cabinet so that we do this. It is an issue that has to be dealt with in the right way.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have the capacity to get into the mind of the Minister, so I can’t prove or disprove whether his recollection is correct or not. I am a member of committee and I do not recall that. I can only go by what I have in my mind. Even the documents we received from the Minister in our in baskets, the briefing note about the potential assessment on the move was dated November 24, 2004. That would have been after our business planning process. That probably would have been when Dene K’onia was being suggested for closure. I don’t know what happened before November as to why the money was not being spent. That was not made clear to us. I don’t recall talking about this during the February and March session. Certainly if the Minister comes and says it’s going to be carried over, that is not the same thing as we are changing the scope of this project.

For the Minister to say that the services will be minimally or slightly changed between Hay River and Yellowknife, let’s not even go there. I don’t know how he can say that the presence or absence of six or seven specialists in one community versus another is just a slight change. With all due respect to all other communities in the Territories, I would like to see a day when all 33 communities in our Territories have the level of specialist services and other services we have in Yellowknife. I am not against that. The fact of the matter is, we don’t have that. We have two ENT specialists, ears, nose and throat specialists that the children have to go see all the time. We have two and we are losing one. We have one psychiatrist who is leaving and we have a child psychiatrist who comes and visits here. No matter how much Ministers Miltenberger and Dent want to have a specialist here, we have not been able to do that. We have very few pediatricians. So for the Minister to say there is a slight change and even the documents that he’s provided to us yesterday says in black and white that the services are not going to be anywhere near close, certainly not slight.

Once again, I cannot prove or disprove whether the Minister’s recollection is right or not, but I am telling you on the basis of this rule, the Cabinet and the Minister are definitely not going with the spirit of this rule. I don’t care what happened in the past, something like this was done, it was wrong then and it’s wrong now. I think the Minister of Finance has to do more to give any kind of confidence to me that the work that I do here as a Member in passing the budget has any meaning, that they are not just going to lapse it, not use it or change it at the Cabinet table and come and say stamp it, approve it because you really have no choice in this matter whatsoever. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Before the Minister responds, I would like to caution all Members to choose their words carefully. Members will be called if they make allegations against another Member or impute false or hidden motives to another Member. Please keep these rules in mind as we proceed. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the services that Ms. Lee has talked about as available here in Yellowknife are territorial services. So they are of the nature that is provided to all residents of the Territories, whether other communities have to travel here to see those specialists. That is a common occurrence within the Northwest Territories. The benefit of having the largest centre is that more services are available here and other residents from across the Territories have to travel here. So it’s a practice that is already done and exercised on a daily basis throughout the territory.

Again, as I have tried to lay out the history of the project and when it was established and the carryovers that have happened and the requests for money to be carried forward as the project started, over a year ago, the Department of Health and Social Services…I mentioned that $3.3 million was identified for this project in the 2003-04 budget, I believe, and $907,000 of that was to be used for starting some of that work on the existing facility. The department did not spend that money and came forward for a request to carry that over. We asked them to substantiate as to why they wanted to carry it forward. At that time their substantiation to us included the fact that they would be looking at an alternate location as they move forward as a possibility. So it’s not like this was pulled out of the hat. The department has been looking at other options. We are to the point now where we are seeking Assembly approval on this. I guess we just get to the point where if it’s disagreed by this Assembly, the only thing to say is to vote it down on this section or delete it or something. I don’t think we can give any more information to satisfy the Members that have concerns with this as to supporting it or not supporting it. I guess I say let’s get on with it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.