Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. If I can get you to maybe join your witnesses at the witness table who are already in the House.
General comments.
Detail.
I am hearing detail. Committee, if I can get you to turn to page 3 of the document. Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 4, 2011-2012. Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, advanced education, not previously authorized, $247,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $247,000. Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to ask a question here. The description indicates that this is a department over-expenditure, but then it also says it doesn’t represent an additional outlay of cash. Could I just get a bit of an explanation as to why we have an over-expenditure that doesn’t actually affect our bottom line, from the sounds of things? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. For that we’ll go to Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through the year-end process, there was identified that there were some assets that had an amortization life of over 40 years and they’re vertical assets or building assets. Our accounting policy states that the maximum life is 40 years, so we adjusted the life of those assets back from over 40 years to 40 years and that resulted in increased amortization expense to the department for those assets in the amount of $247,000. So it’s a non-cash item, but we still need to record the appropriation. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Aumond, for the explanation. That’s all, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Committee, we are on page 3, Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 4, 2011-2012. Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, advanced education, not previously authorized, $247,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $247,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Page 4, Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 4, 2011-2012. Transportation, operations expenditures, highways, not previously authorized, $344,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $344,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Does committee agree that we’ve concluded consideration of Tabled Document 44-17(4), Supplementary Estimates (Operation Expenditures), No. 4, 2011-2012?
Agreed.
Thank you. We’ll go to Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that consideration of Tabled Document 44-17(4), Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 4, 2011-2012, be now concluded and that Tabled Document 44-17(4) be reported and recommended as ready for further consideration in formal session through the form of an appropriation bill. Thank you.
---Carried
Does committed wish to continue with Tabled Document 45-17(4)?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Opening comments, Minister Miltenberger.
I am here to present Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2012-2013. This document outlines an increase of $16.417 million in operations expenditures for the 2012-2013 fiscal year.
The major items included in the supplementary estimates are:
A total of $5.3 million for the Department of Health and Social Services for increased costs associated with adults and children in residential care outside the Northwest Territories.
$4.7 million for the Department of Health and Social Services for increased costs for the provision of health care services to non-NWT residents, which will be fully offset by recoveries from other jurisdictions for services for their residents.
$2.3 million for the Department of Health and Social Services for increased costs for medical travel.
$1.2 million to report a special warrant approved on December 14, 2012, for the Department of Transportation to fund incremental work for the Mackenzie Valley winter roads. The total costs associated with this work will be fully recovered from industry.
I would like to note that in total, $8 million of the $16 million supplementary appropriations request is offset by federal or other revenues.
I am prepared to review the details of the supplementary estimates document. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Minister Miltenberger, if you’d like to join your colleagues at the witness table. General comments.
Detail.
Okay, committee, if I can get you to turn to page 3 of your document, Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2012-2013. Human Resources, operations expenditures, employee services, not previously authorized, $921,000. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a general question with regard to all of these expenditures. These were unforeseen in this budget year, that’s why they’re here. So to the Minister, I understand that we have a contingency fund or we have a reserve for both infrastructure and for operations budgets. So a couple of questions. What is our reserve for the 2012-13 budget year for operations and how do all the items in this particular supplementary appropriation affect our reserve fund? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. For that we’ll go to Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a $10 million reserve and we’re over that. Thank you.
If the Minister could advise how much over that we are. Thank you. What is the total right now of our reserve? We are minus how much? Thank you.
Thank you. In concluding this supp currently before us, it will be $18.961 million.
Thanks for the information from the Minister. We’re almost at $19 million in the hole, so to speak. I appreciate that we have unforeseen costs periodically, but I would have thought with a reserve of $10 million and we’re now $19 million in the hole, that means we overshot our budget by $29 million. Are there specific large items that we can reference that caused us to be so much in the hole or is this an accumulation of a number of smaller things that have added up to this deficit of $19 million?
We’re going to do some base adjustments to increase the amount of the reserve. As you go through the list, as Mr. Aumond has said a number of times, we were dealing last year with flood, fire and pestilence. As well, we’ve had some significant increases on the cost for services for individuals in care for Health and Social Services.
So just one last question. I know that my experience has been that we regularly encounter extra costs for people in care, particularly people in care down south but also physician services that we access from down south. The Minister mentioned changing the base budgets in a number of places. Is services for people in care and physician services and so on, hospitals out of the territory, are those the areas where we’re increasing base funding, or maybe can the Minister tell me what departments we are increasing base funding for?
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. For that we’ll go to Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we are considering base adjustments for both children and adult out-of-territory care, medical travel, and for blood products.
That pretty much answers my questions. I’m done. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Page 3, Human Resources, operations expenditures, employee services, not previously authorized, $921,000. Total department, not previously authorized, $921,000.
Agreed.
Page 4, Finance, operations expenditures, deputy minister’s office, not previously authorized, $1.212 million. Total department, not previously authorized, $1.212 million. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick question on the contribution to the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation. Is that a similar type of support they are also receiving in Norman Wells because of the conversion of the natural gas, and what things they have to do to prepare for the conversion to other sources of energy?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Miltenberger. We’ll go to Mr. Aumond.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member is correct; part of the utility costs are for Norman Wells for conversion of their units and increase in utilities for fuel and also for electricity.
The town of Norman Wells, through the public housing, I guess the Public Housing Program, there shouldn’t have any glitches in terms of the conversion and the way it’s working out.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The intent is to make this as seamless a transition as possible.
I would again ask if the whole town of Norman Wells, through this contribution to the Housing Corporation, will see all the units in the town of Norman Wells receive this type of support as we’re giving to Inuvik because of the conversion of natural gas to synthetic natural gas.
As we move forward with the resolution to the energy challenges in Norman Wells, they will be getting, of course, the full support that we have to offer both on the Housing Corporation side and other government agencies as required. But that work is still underway and not quite clear in terms of the final fix that we’re looking at in Norman Wells. There has been a significant amount of move to biomass, for example, for heat. There was initially about a $39 million ask by the community for a major district heating, which I believe they’ve moved away from, so we’re working with them, plus we’re continuing to convert our own facilities, as we’ve indicated through this budget, to biomass. We will be having that ongoing discussion with Norman Wells as things become clearer in terms of next steps.
I look forward to the discussion and having discussion in the House here. My colleague Ms. Bisaro has indicated we’re pretty well in the hole here, so I hope we have some reserves left over for that type of discussion to support the town of Norman Wells on their conversion to what source of energy that we’re going to direct our funds to. I look forward to the discussion. I think the Minister has pretty well answered my questions.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. More of a comment. We’re going to go to Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also wanted to ask a couple of questions on this. I know we’re putting in some millions of dollars to basically buy down the electricity rate throughout the NWT until a couple years down the road when we’re done with the increases, but I see here that we’re also covering them as they got bought down. They actually get parcelled out to the various customers and, obviously, GNWT is the biggest customer here, including the Housing Corporation. This is all on top of the 11 point something million for the Territorial Power Subsidy, so I don’t think it’s got anything to do with that. When all is said and done, what if the cost of buying down is just going to be out of sight now but still being paid by GNWT, because we, as their biggest customer, roll it out of a subsidy into simply paying our bills?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The government doesn’t get any subsidies. We pay the fully burdened rates. I’m not sure if that answers the Member’s question.
