Bill 17 has had second reading and is referred to a standing committee.
---Carried
Mr. Abernethy.
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Monfwi, that Bill 18, Apology Act, be read for the second time.
This bill provides that an apology made by or on behalf of a person in relation to any civil matter does not constitute an admission of fault or liability by the person or a confirmation of a cause of action in relation to the matter, and does not affect the insurance coverage available to the person making the apology. The bill also provides an apology is not admissible in any judicial or quasi-judicial civil proceeding and may not be considered or referred to in relation to fault or liability in any such proceedings. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 18 has had second reading and is referred to a standing committee.
---Carried
Mr. Abernethy.
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Bill 19, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2013, be read for the second time.
This bill corrects inconsistencies and errors in statutes of the Northwest Territories. The bill deals with other matters of a minor non-controversial or uncomplicated nature in the statutes and repeals provisions that have ceased to have an effect. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 19 has had second reading and is referred to a standing committee.
---Carried
Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Speaker, I seek consent to proceed with second reading of Bill 20, An Act to Amend the Tlicho Community Government Act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
---Consent granted
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Monfwi, that Bill 20, An Act to Amend the Tlicho Community Government Act, be read for the second time.
This bill amends the Tlicho Community Government Act to modify the eligibility criteria for nomination as a candidate for councillor of a community government, so as to properly achieve consistency with amendments made by the Tlicho Statutes Amendment Act, SNWT 2013,c.9. The bill comes into force retroactive to the March 14, 2013, day of assent of that previous amending statute. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Bill 20 has had second reading.
---Carried
Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 69(2) and have Bill 20 moved into Committee of the Whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
---Unanimous consent granted
Bill 20 is moved into Committee of the Whole for later today. Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 23, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 2, 2013-2014, be read for the second time.
This bill makes supplementary appropriations for infrastructure expenditures for the Northwest Territories for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Bill 23 has had second reading.
---Carried
I will call Committee of the Whole to order. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee would like to deliberate Tabled Document 79-17(4), Bill 11, Bill 20 and, time permitting, Committee Report 3-17(4).
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
We will commence after a short break.
---SHORT RECESS
I call the Committee of the Whole to order. Committee, we’ve agreed to review Tabled Document 79-17(4). We’ll go to the Minister responsible, Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here to present Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2013-2014. This document outlines an increase of $17.757 million in operations expenditures for the 2013-2014 fiscal year.
The major items included in the supplementary estimates are:
$9.7 million for the Department of Executive for funding for costs associated with the implementation of the final Devolution Agreement. The net impact on government operations is nil as these costs will be offset with funding to be received from the federal government.
$2.5 million for the Department of Transportation for costs associated with repairs to the runway at the Hay River Airport;
a total of $1.6 million to install wood pellet boilers in the Mackenzie Mountain School and airport in Norman Wells;
$1.3 million for the Department of Transportation for funding for the increased costs associated with extending ferry operations across the Peel River and Mackenzie River during the autumn freeze-up period in the Beaufort-Delta region;
a total of $1.1 million for the departments of Finance and Public Works and Services for funding for costs associated with the implementation of financial shared services in Norman Wells, Hay River, Fort Smith, Fort Simpson and Yellowknife.
I am prepared to review the details of the supplementary estimates document. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister. Would the Minister like to bring witnesses into the House?
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. I will now ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses into the Chamber.
Could the Minister please introduce his witnesses?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me Mr. Mike Aumond, deputy minister of Finance, and Mr. Olin Lovely, director of budgeting and evaluation, Department of Finance. Thank you.
Thank you. We will open the floor for general comments on Tabled Document 79-17(4), Supplementary Appropriation, No. 2. Does committee agree to proceed to detail?
Agreed.
I’ll have everybody turn to page 3. Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2013-2014. Legislative Assembly, operations expenditures, expenditures on behalf of Members, not previously authorized, $2,000.
Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $2,000.
Agreed.
Executive, operations expenditures, directorate, not previously authorized, $9.755 million. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s a pleasure to see you in that position today. My question has to deal with this not previously authorized in the directorate for $9.755 million. I found that number to be a bit of a shocker, given the fact that this is a supplementary estimate. These are supposed to be monies not previously deemed in the main estimate program.
My first question has to do with the fact that the Devolution AIP identified $26.5 million, or almost $27 million to offset any implementation costs of the Devolution Final Agreement. If I can get maybe an explanation as to what is the cash flow in representing of the money that we received from the Government of Canada, and vis-à-vis this current ask today.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Member is correct; there is $26.5 million identified. We have received $4 million to date, and we will receive the remainder of that once the final agreement has been signed.
In anticipation of that signing, we would like to get on with the implementation of the Devolution Final Agreement and be prepared for April 1, 2014, so we are seeking the approval of new money plus money that was lapsed from the previous year, for a total of $9.755 million.
I appreciate the deputy minister’s clarification on the subject. My question more has to do with the realities that supplementary appropriations should be minimal, at best. These are gap-fill measures to keep us by or to consider maybe some unforeseen spending in any one department.
Given the fact that we’ve seen devolution on the forefront – it’s been through our windshield now for quite a while – I was, again, quite shocked to see the largeness of that number, given the fact that almost half of this supplementary appropriation has to do with that one line entry.
My question is: Did we not see this coming? Was this something that we could not have forecasted within the regular process of the current process of budgeting, and why are we seeing this in a supplementary fashion?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We did have the foresight to anticipate this broad cost, the global figure of almost $27 million. We’ve been on a one-of-a-kind process here that we’ve been negotiating with the federal government. There’s been an enormous amount of work done. Some things didn’t move as fast as we anticipated with the negotiations. We are now, as was indicated today in the House by the Premier when he indicated we’re giving notice of motion that we’re going to have the motion on devolution with the agreement before the House, so this is a one-time occurrence and it’s been moved as fast as we could move it. We’ve budgeted as well as we could. There were some things we didn’t control, and hence, we are back before the House with the funding request and the lapses that we want to put to good use.
Again, all very good, prescriptive responses, and I’m not going to disagree. I think this money is being spent in a proper fashion. My question is, again, the large figure that we’re seeing in the supplementary. So if I can get maybe, I don’t need a detailed breakdown, but what are some of the high points within that $9.7 million that would be deemed something we did not see coming? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, one of the biggest numbers, of course, is we are carrying over money because we did hit some delays last year with the process. We anticipated that we would be farther along at that point and we weren’t, so we carried over that amount of money. We’ve been doing an enormous amount of work with the federal government, trying to get the numbers as they pertain to all the different budgets, all the positions here and in Ottawa, the legislative requirements, doing the work on the negotiations on waste sites. There has been an enormous amount of work done there, trying to first make sure we had a comprehensive list, the type of the waste sites, the detail of the work there, the work on water and the discussions there, the work on the MVRMA, and the delegation of those authorities. Across the board, as you will see when you look at the packages that you have with the agreement of 390-some pages of negotiated agreement and attachments, that that is where all that money has been spent and will be spent along the implementation side. Thank you.
I do appreciate the forensic reply here. Again, my question is not to second guess where the money is being spent. I think that is a given. I think the facts are there. We heard from the deputy minister that we received just over $4 million of monies to offset, and again, as the note said here, that net effect on government operations will be nil. My concern is that we are now adding money on our side of the fence to top this up.
When do we anticipate to receive the full value of this $26.5 million? Will it be in our hands prior to the April 1, 2014, so-called launch date? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
