Debates of March 1, 2006 (day 39)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this increase that we’re asking for here does cover the 2005-2006 fiscal year, but we have not made adjustments in the 2006-2007 fiscal year. After the work is done on reviewing this, doing some of the tracking of historical data there, we’ll have a better idea of where we think we’ll need to be and at that time come forward with a request for more funds if that’s the case. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just curious if we could explore the comments made by the Minister about the shortfalls made up by the departments. When was the signal to the Minister or the department of FMB about the shortage and the fact that they were covering it through alternative means? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Voytilla can provide that level of detail as the work around budget preparations when we had started to realize there was a shortfall. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Voytilla.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We became aware of the potential problem here last summer when we started to work with the departments on the budget transfers associated with the human resources amalgamation. So we became aware that there could be a shortfall in this area at that point in time. We weren’t sure whether or not 2004-2005 was an anomaly, though, because of the sharp increase in that year or whether it was likely to be sustained. Our current year-to-date spending trends show that, indeed, it looks like it will be sustained and so that’s why we need this supp. But it’s also why we’re so motivated to go back over the records of the last two years and see what’s driving that increase.

Thank you, Mr. Voytilla. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess if I could trouble them to restate, although they sort of answered this before, but if I could trouble the Minister to restate when it’s expected that they’ll have the 2005-2006 numbers up to date and to give us a full sense of what’s being carried forward, the problem, and in the sense of who we can work forward to make this adjustment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we stated, it would take us a few months to do our work where we feel we could be in a position to provide Members more information on whether we think we’ll have to make another adjustment for the 2006-2007 budget. As the normal process is, after year-end we’ll have to go through the normal works of our budgeting exercise to come up with year-end numbers and after that we’ll then be able to come back with the results of the 2005-2006 year. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In this particular case, obviously we have an agreement in place and we have to ensure that it’s funded properly, which I have no concern with that issue. The concern I think I would have is, and this is what I’m asking for, is a commitment from the Minister whereas when we notice these anomalies and they may not be specific to, for example, Collective Agreement issues where dental premiums are under funded or whatnot. It could be a whole array of issues. But when we notice anomalies like this and, as stated by Mr. Voytilla, was noticed last summer when they were building the 2006-2007 budget, I’m wondering if the Minister could commit today to start sending us a letter to inform us that there should be large anomalies that we should be expecting in advance. One could perceive this anywhere from eight to nine months after it was noticed and we’re only seeing a dollar figure before us now. It’s not a difficult issue to pass on my side or my perspective; I have no problem with it. It’s only the concern of notice from a Regular Member’s point of view. It’s the old, by the way, we weren’t funding this properly, guess what, we have a $1.2 million bill that came out of nowhere, but all along it was being funded internally. I guess all I’m asking from the Minister is that we can consider a best practice that when we notice anomalies like this, he could give the Accountability and Oversight committee a bit of a heads up so we can foresee these things coming, and that way they’re not a bit of a shock to either the system or whatnot, or surprise. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think we already have in place a fairly good system of informing Members when we have to make changes in the budget process, as well as request more funding. As stated in this case, as we became aware of it and started looking at this, started to do some of the review in this area working with departments, we’ve come to the point where we know we will not have the room within FMBS for 2005-2006 fiscal year to absorb this type of spike in the budget itself. Yes, the Member is right; between areas where it is, for example in this case, part of the union agreements we have and other areas where it does not fall into those categories, we can try to mitigate some of those costs in other areas. If, again, it ultimately comes down to the department’s ability to fund and if there’s to be any changes from within departments, there’s that reporting process and requirement through to Members, as well. So we can work with what we have in place, I believe, to work with Members to keep them informed of changes in budget areas as we become aware of them and do our substantiation as to why they’re happening. Of course, we know when we do inform Members of changes, we get questions as to why these things are occurring, so we have to do our work, as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Page 7, Executive, operations expenditures, Financial Management Board Secretariat, client services, not previously authorized, $1.239 million.

Agreed.

Total Financial Management Board Secretariat, $1.239 million.

Agreed.

Total department, not previously authorized. $2.449 million.

Agreed.

Page 8, Finance, operations expenditures, directorate, not previously authorized, negative $4,000.

Agreed.

Bureau of Statistics, not previously authorized, negative $992,000.

Agreed.

Total department, not previously authorized, negative $996,000.

Agreed.

Page 9, Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, community operations, not previously authorized, $4.792 million. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Part of this allocation refers to some disaster assistance for the charter community of K’ahsho Gotine resulting from some flooding last spring during the break-up. There is $1.006 million booked for this. Mr. Chairman, part of the detail here says that up to 85 percent of these costs will be recovered through the federal government’s disaster financial assistance arrangement and I wanted to see what kind of certainty there is to recovering up to 85 percent of this. That would be about $850,000, a fair amount of money. Can the Minister provide some comment to the certainty of this recovery, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Voytilla can provide that level of detail. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Voytilla.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The federal policy is a long-standing federal policy that’s in place and as long as the expenditures that were incurred were compliant with that policy, our understanding is that reimbursement is assured. We’ve been working with the federal government, Department of Municipal and Community Affairs have been working with the federal government to ensure that the nature of the expenditures that we incurred would be eligible. So our understanding is that the 85 percent, give or take a bit, is pretty much assured.

Thank you, Mr. Voytilla. Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Does the GNWT then have a policy regarding disaster relief or disaster assistance to communities? If we can recover 85 percent from the federal government under compliant costs, is the balance, at least of this expenditure, which would be around $150,000, covered by policy somewhere, or is this a one of a kind issue-by-issue consideration, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, for our own policy and the requirements of that, if we can have the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs provide that information.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, our policy as per our agreement with the federal government allows us to recruit up to 85 percent of these expenditures. In the case of Good Hope, it was towards eight houses that were damaged by flood and there was severe contamination by sewer and other chemicals in that area. They were declared unfit for human habitation. We decided to pay for 100 percent of the repairs and allow the homeowners to go back to the houses. These people didn’t have HAP houses, so we will be paying for anything over and above 85 percent. Our policy only allows us to recoup 85 percent from the federal government.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chair, not to sound mean spirited here, but do we put any onus at all, or any part of the responsibility or cost, however accidental it may be, on the people who own these houses or who have lost property? I think, as I heard the Minister say, we are shouldering 100 percent. Does that include the contents? For instance, vehicles, snow machines, boats or anything else that was lost? Are we still picking up 100 percent of that loss, Mr. Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, we are covering 100 percent of the costs to upgrade the house to bring it to a standard where they can move back into the units. We are also ensuring that the houses are now at the 100 year high water mark. These people that own these houses did not have any other avenue. They lacked the resources to address the situation. I suppose we could have let them go and leave these houses contaminated. They would have been written off, but that didn’t change the situation, so we decided to pay for 100 percent of the cost of bringing these houses up to a standard where they could move back in. We are recouping 85 percent of it, so we are shouldering the other portion of it.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Braden.

Thank you. Again, we are going into some policy area here, and maybe it is something that I will take up at another time in more detail, but I am interested in how consistent this policy is across various losses or disasters or people who lose cabins and things due to forest fires, floods and various things of this nature. Unless the Minister cares to offer some comment, does disaster loss of any kind enable the victims to be able to get 100 percent of costs covered by the government? Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, as laid out, the process we fall under when it comes to a natural disaster or a disaster in this area where a flood had occurred, the policy and the arrangement of the federal government is that they would cover 85 percent of the cost. Beyond that, normally, again, a person’s own household insurance there, that area we would expect would cover the rest of the loss in that area. In this case, as we were informed at the time and made the decision to support the initiative to cover the rest of the cost, is that this case would not have done us any positiveness in the community in the sense that, if we did not do the work to cover the additional costs for repairing homes, we would end up having to put people into new homes in a sense of further either in public housing or new housing through the Housing Corporation program. So it was felt that this case with the covering of 85 percent by the federal government, we could cover the remainder and still put people back into their own homes. The rest of the items they would have to cover on their own. In the process, we were focussing on the homes themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Braden.

Thank you. One or two items further on this page, Mr. Chair, $180,000 of provision for some contamination recovery at the old swimming pool site in Fort Providence. Mr. Chair, I am wondering if this is the end of this story. Are we potentially gearing up for something that is going to have additional costs, Mr. Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Right now we are dealing with community operations. But in regards to Mr. Braden’s question, I can…Regional operations, not previously authorized, $180,000. Mr. Braden had a question there. Mr. Roland.