Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger.
Yes, Madam Chair, it did.
I appreciate the Minister’s response. For my final answer, again, I’m looking for closure on this file. There will be no other supplementary asks for any other budgetary lines that we should expect in committee with respect to any type of funding for demolition of these two schools or any other type of repatriation or costs associated with the new E3 School project as a whole asset cost?
Yes, we are presenting what we have as a final expenditure on that project.
Keeping on the topic of the asset management, there is a not previously authorized of $179,000, under the description of to provide funding for costs resulting from increased electricity rates. Could we get a bit more of an explanation as to that line entry?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a result of the decision taken by the PUB to increase rates, so this is the requirement for ’14-15 for the Department of Public Works and Services who is funded for the utilities for government assets for this year. We weren’t able to confirm what was required for ’14-15 in time for the budget, so that’s why it is brought forward as a supplementary appropriation at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Mr. Dolynny.
Madam Chair, I’m a bit confused here. Are we talking about the rate increases that everyone here is much aware of? The public at large, we’re very much aware. There was three years of a 7 percent increase and, I believe, year four of a 5 percent increase. Are we referring to those increases from the Public Utilities Board?
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger.
Yes, Madam Chair. In 2012-13 it was 7 percent; ’13-14, 7; ’14-15, 5.6; ’15-16, 6.2.
Now we’re talking apples and apples, which is good to know. I guess what I have a hard time understanding here is our own government, our own Public Works and Services, was not aware of a rate increase which is clearly defined in our government. Everything that we’ve had in our business plans and, I think, the public at large was very much aware of the increases that we were going to have or that did occur here. What we’re saying here is that we didn’t anticipate the very same increases that we actually approved and this is why we’re seeing it as a supplementary expenditure. If I can get an explanation of that, because I’m a bit confused.
We were waiting the PUB official ruling before we could include it and it didn’t happen in time to get it in the budget. Now that we do have it, we are coming forward in this forum.
I would probably agree with that comment if this was year one of the four-year implementation plan of rate increases, but we’re not in year one. I believe we’ve completed year two, so we’re well into the four-year rate increases from the Public Utilities Board. So I have a hard time understanding how we didn’t anticipate that and we didn’t have that number in time, hence we’re seeing it today.
Can I get some clarification in the first just so that, again, we’ve got all the dates right here because, again, we’re talking ‘14-15 here. Are we saying that this was year one of the implementation plan? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Kalgutkar.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, what the Members are seeing here is the incremental impact of how the shortfall was calculated. So as Members recall, when we did the ‘13-14 amount, an amount of $1.7 million was provided to the department during the last session and we sought number three for ‘13-14 of $1.7 million and the basis of that increase was how the shortfall was calculated. We originally did the shortfall based on a three-year moving average and the methodology was updated to base it on actual consumption of electricity.
So we did provide a provision for the department in ‘14-15 of about $1.5 million for anticipated rate increases and what this difference is, is a change in how we changed the forecasting. So the shortfall is $180,000 in ‘14-15. Thank you.
Thank you. What I’m really trying to get to the bottom here, as Members here we can only go on the descriptors that are provided to us as we lead up to discussion in Committee of the Whole here on the floor of the House. When I see increases of electricity rates and it’s clear that it may not be a rate issue, it may be the fact that, well, we had a shortfall on not calculating our proper use and we had more electrical use than we planned for, but if that’s the case then I should see a description that says, well, we missed the mark on our use, but we’re seeing a description here that says, well, we missed the mark in the rate. So are we talking about the rate miscalculation or are we talking about the use miscalculation? Thank you.
Thank you. I totally agree with the Member. He’s correct. The description on this could have been clearer and we’ll correct that going forward. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Kalgutkar. Public Works and Services, operations expenditures, total department, not previously authorized. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of quick follow-ups there, perhaps one on that same issue of the $179,000 for electricity costs.
I know we moved all our utilities into Public Works and Services so that we could identify opportunities for efficiencies and ways to keep those costs down. Am I understanding here that we haven’t figured that out yet? I don’t know what our total budget is for electricity, but an increase of $179,000, that’s sort of level-eyed look for deficiencies based on this move into Public Works and Services where one hand can be on the pulse and figure out where the opportunities lie and take advantage of them.
Could I just get some comments from the Minister where we’re at with that expectation as a result of moving all of our utilities into one department like this, which I think is a good idea? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That process has been done. We are looking at, in terms of management efficiencies, in terms of actual dollar savings, we’ve done things separate from electricity, but with things, as the Member is well aware, with biomass, where we’ve put the savings back in with the issue of electricity, the costs keep going up every year. So we’re not in a position of being able to save the 7 percent rate increases through those types of efficiencies. As a Power Corporation, we’re looking at a wholesale change out. For example, things like LED lights from the sodium vapour. We’re looking at all sorts of efficiencies in the Yellowknife area, but the issue of are we saving that kind of money to offset the 7 percent rates, no, we’re not. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister for that. I heard earlier today from the Premier that we were spending millions of dollars. I think he said tens of millions of dollars on these sorts of issues, but perhaps our residents are getting more benefit than we are from this. It seems like there should be some opportunities to be realized here. Just a comment, unless the Minister has any additional perspectives. Thank you.
Thank you. If you look across the whole spectrum of energy, including the renewables, we are spending tens of millions of dollars over the last number of years going right back to the last government where we started with the $60 million and we’ve carried on every year since, trying to make sure we keep that work going. So we are investing that kind of money and we’re continuing to invest both in the actual delivery as well as the planning and design on a go forward basis. Especially if we’re successful and confirm our $1 million O and M increase, then we’ll have the ability to look at some serious economic infrastructure investments. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Bromley, anything further?
No, thank you, Mr. Chair. There are lots of comments that deserve a reply on that response, but I’ll hold off on those. Thank you.
Alright, committee, we’re on Department of Public Works and Services, operations expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $3.777 million.
Agreed.
Agreed. Page 10, Department of Health and Social Services, operations expenditures, directorate, previously not authorized, $906,000; health services programs not previously authorized, negative $326,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $580,000. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If the Minister would like to provide some clarity in terms of the negative operations expenditure of $326,000. Again, it talks about costs associated for Yellowknife Consolidated Health Clinic lease. If I can get a clarification on that, please. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There’s an accompanying $326,000 added to the Public Works budget. So this money is being transferred between departments as Public Works takes over the leasing portfolio of the clinics.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So what I’m getting at here is that we’re taking the money out of health services and Public Works now is taking over the lease operations of this clinic. Is that my understanding? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is the lease associated with the consolidated clinic here in Yellowknife, and Public Works and Services manages the lease portfolio on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories and at the time this lease was entered into, the funding provided before the lease was held in the Department of Health and Social Services, and it’s just being transferred into the Department of Public Works and Services, who manages the lease on behalf of the department. Thank you.
I guess the question I have is that clinic has been operational now for some time here and it’s only now that we’re transferring from the Department of Health to Public Works and Services.
Do we have other scenarios right now in the Northwest Territories where the Department of Health does have a number of their leases, or are all leases now going under Public Works and Services? Thank you.
Public Works and Services already had the base part of the lease. This is just the O and M portion of the lease – heat, utilities, janitorial, et cetera – associated with that lease funding. This is an anomaly, and by and large all the leases and all the funding associated with leasing for the GNWT is in the Public Works and Services budget already. Thank you.
Just for one final clarifier, we do not have any other health clinics, health facilities. As of now, all health facilities are under the realm and statutory obligation of Public Works and Services. Is that, indeed, correct? Thank you.
I believe that’s for the most part, but I would have to confirm and get back to committee about that. Thank you.
Thank you, deputy minister. Committee, we are on Department of Health and Social Services, operations expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $580,000.
Agreed.
Page 11, Department of Justice, operations expenditures, services to the government, not previously authorized, $651,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $651,000.
Agreed.
Page 12, Department of Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, directorate and administration, not previously authorized, $1.378 million; education and culture, not previously authorized, negative $1.899 million. Total department, not previously authorized, negative $521,000. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have questions on the $114,000 planned for electronic tablets under the Early Childhood Development Framework.
My first question is: Why weren’t these dollars spent? These dollars were provided in the previous fiscal year.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Kalgutkar.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There were some delays in rolling out some of the tablet purchases due to issues with the supplier. The department is now requesting that that funding that was lapsed in ‘13-14 be carried over to the ‘14-15 fiscal year. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Kalgutkar. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you. This is the first I have heard that Apple was not able to supply iPads, but that’s interesting to hear.
I understand that 300 iPads were purchased. Were they distributed, and if not, why not?
