Debates of March 19, 2004 (day 4)

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, when we sent the direction out to the departments to come up with a 25 percent reduction in travel, we used actual numbers that they had spent for travel. We wanted to make sure we got an actual amount, not a planned amount. We wanted to use actual numbers that were spent on travel, figuring that’s the most accurate way to proceed. That’s why it’s done in that way. We do have information, for example, within our envelope here we’ve looked at travel for the whole department and we’re looking at the total of about $452,000 of travel and that includes travel for self-government/devolution purposes, for delivery of training, job evaluation, human resource systems, payroll, arbitration appeals, benefits file review, system consultations, Nunavut records, mediators. There are a lot of them that are included in this area. Again, requirements that because FMBS is involved in the human resources, at least in the Public Service Act side, required travel is established and booked in there. But for the exercise of giving Members information on the 25 percent reduction, we went with actual numbers so that we knew that there was a solid amount that could be saved based on what departments had spent in prior years. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for that explanation, Mr. Minister. The next question I have is in terms of vacant positions, and I’ll ask you about your department. When a position is vacant for four, six, eight months, whatever the case may be, that money being used, Mr. Chairman, to fund other functions or other activities inside the department such as travel or other contracted services or other expenses as they’re called, I’m just wondering, through you, Mr. Chairman, in FMBS when there’s vacant positions do they use the funded positions for other activities inside that department? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There’s going to be a need for government to have some flexibility to move some of the dollars around. But there are also requirements to report where you move the dollars around if they get to a certain amount of volume. We do, for example in FMBS, book approximately eight percent vacancy rate and that can be used, for example, for student hires, for summer employment and casual positions. There is some leeway as to moving that money around, trying to keep it in the same area.

With the amount of delivery of programs and services we have as a government, there’s going to be some flexibility of having to move those dollars around. I know I used to question the integrity of the system, but we could give you the actual budget sheets the departments work off of to establish the amount of travel their section’s going to require, what it’s for. I would be starting in June going through that whole exercise. I don’t think, as Members of the Assembly, we want to get down to that detail of accounting for every dollar. We trust that the information being provided to us is good information. If it isn’t, we better fix it and account for it in that way.

Through the business plan cycle there will be a lot more detail provided and we’d work to give that information to Members. Again, as I stated earlier to a previous Member’s questions, if committee Members have suggestions on ways we can deliver this information we’d be glad to sit down and work with you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for that explanation, Mr. Minister. I do have some difficulty though, especially given the fact that some of our larger government departments would have vacancy rates upwards of 10 percent. That being the case, we’re talking about some pretty significant dollars that are associated with those vacant positions. I do agree with you that, yes, departments and managers need to be able to have some flexibility and have to have some room to manoeuvre inside their departments, but if the money that is earmarked for positions isn’t spent on the positions I have some difficulty with that, as do some of the other Members on this side of the House. I’m not sure how we tackle it. I know it’s probably not a new thing that I’m bringing up here today, but it’s something that I feel very strongly about. I think budgets are set for people to follow and I know it happens. I don’t know how we can stop it from happening or try to discourage that type of creative accounting inside departments. I think it’s something that we should keep an eye on. I know the Minister is aware of that and maybe we can work collectively here over the next couple of weeks to try to find a way that we can try to tackle that. In a bigger department it certainly is an issue, a bigger issue for me depending on the size of the department.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I stated what FMBS does and how it budgets and provides that eight percent margin. Not all departments have that. Some departments don’t budget any vacancy amount, but I understand where the Member is coming from. Again, we are approving a budget and on those lines that they would be accounted for. So we’re going to do our part to ensure that what we identify for expenditures, those dollars are spent in those areas. If there’s a requirement to move them, we report back to the House. We even, for example, use interdepartmental transfers. So within a department you’re moving money from one program area to another. We have to bring that report back to the House and that’s how we show if there have to be any shifts. If we’re not doing that then we’re in trouble. We have to account for where that money is spent and if it’s not spent in that area we have to report why. Any amount over $250,000 shifted from one program to another comes through another report in the House. We have a number of reporting mechanisms to ensure that, as a government, once we’ve passed this budget we account for where that money is spent. But, yes, there is some room in there and I’ve often, as a regular Member, called that into question myself about how we do that. I’m open and willing to work with committee to see what we can do to try and improve on how we do things and ensure that we’re operating as a transparent and effective government. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Ramsay, your time has run out. I will go to Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page 2-39 of the main estimates in the budget summary, I want to ask the Minister and his staff, Mr. Chairman, about the 2002-2003 actuals. It seems like under the line of grants and contributions that we’re in a wave. It starts in 2002-2003 at $936,000, then in 2003-2004 main estimates go up to $1.2 million, then the revised estimates for 2003-2004 go to $3.3 million and then this year, 2004-2005, we’re back into $1.2 million. It seems like we’re riding a wave here and I want to ask the Minister and his staff, Mr. Chairman, why is that wave there? Can you explain that to me?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the initial amount of 2002-2003 actuals of $936,000 is the amount we book for superannuation for, I believe, the Power Corporation and Workers' Compensation Board. The changing amount in the main estimates is the estimated amount of what would be required of us in the same area. The 2003-2004 revised estimates is a change in the grant-in-kind for staff housing; a one-time grant to staff housing. Again, that’s because we no longer have that program. I know Mr. Voytilla here was getting antsy because of the fear that program might come back to life. We do not have that program any more and that’s why that transfer, we have to account for that grant-in-kind value to the Housing Corporation. That’s why that has jumped up significantly. But it’s a one-time grant-in-kind. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I take the opinion that I hope we can bring it back to life again. That’s another forum we can talk about. I guess what I’m alluding to, Mr. Chairman, is that what happens with this budget today in the process that we’re going through over the next couple of weeks is unusual. However, as Members we took it on as our own, as Mr. Ramsay alluded, that we went right into the budget without the business plans. That’s our responsibility and we did that. We’re learning here, Mr. Chairman.

I found that after a while it was strange not having a business plan and going right into the main estimates, but that’s okay. It’s a learning experience. However, what we do here today and the next couple of weeks is going to be very important because it’s going to have an effect on the people back in our communities. With the wave, I guess, in terms of things that are happening in terms of the grants and contributions, planning for the communities for the next five or 10 years, we’re the leaders in this field here. We are the leaders and it has come down to the community. We are expecting also to tighten their belts and watch their spending and some things that are unforeseen in the region or the communities. I hope the way we do business doesn’t penalize the communities in how they have extra expenditures. I think we all have to do this together.

I think the communities need to be supported in their spending and some of the unforeseen costs they may have to swallow in the future. I guess I’m saying that through this exercise and the Financial Management Board Secretariat that they provide some strong leadership and flexibility to our regions and our communities in terms of their expenditures and their accounting of programs. Just a comment there, Mr. Chairman. I’m not too sure if the Minister wants to answer. That’s as far as I want to go today.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. If you would like to comment, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, again how we work with our departments and deliver the programs and services to the communities is critical. I think you’ll see a better example when you go through Municipal and Community Affairs because they deal in municipal services and they can show fluctuations and changes for costs that weren’t planned for, but had to come up with the money to help address those concerns in the communities. Health and Social Services is the same thing. One of the other tools that’s out there is the supplementary appropriation where there has to be additions to it to try and deal with those increased costs. That is an exercise that Members will be going through here during this session, as well. So there are avenues that we did build in to try to deal with some of those unforeseen costs in the communities. But it is very difficult, as stated, when we are right now in a cycle and situation where we are going to do with less money and trying to find the revenue to maintain the existing level of programs and services that are expected by our residents. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question would be a point on some clarification. I just want to ask the Minister if the costs of assets and services is because of the large reduction in the assets and services from 2002-03 to 2004-05. Is that just due to the department releasing all of these staff housing units to the NWT Housing Corporation, and that we would see this increase in the costs of assets and service in the Housing Corporation budget summary? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member has it right. The reduction in the cost of assets and service is a result of the transfer to the Housing Corporation, and that corresponding amount will appear in the Housing Corporation section. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the Minister. Just for my own information on this transfer of the housing units to the NWT Housing Corporation, can the Minister provide the Members of the House with some information as to how many housing units we are actually referring to when we are looking at $2.6 million in assets?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I believe there are about 25 units that were transferred over, and they range from a number of communities: Fort Liard; Fort Resolution; Good Hope; Paulatuk; Deline; Tuktoyaktuk; and, Fort McPherson.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you very much for that information. Another quick question that a couple of the other Members were referring to insofar as other expenses go in the breakdown of other expenses; in particular, travel. I know that the government travel budget is still significantly high, according to a lot of Members, but a lot of the travel for a lot of the department members and their employees is directly related to their actual responsibilities in their positions, and increasing their performance, and carrying out a better service for the public. On the flipside of the coin, I also realize that there is extensive travel for a lot of GNWT employees to attend functions or workshops, which the cost benefit of attending these workshops and conferences every year just starts getting smaller and smaller insofar as getting a real benefit for the amount of money that the government puts into it every year. I am just wondering if that type of travel where the employees and other government members are going to certain conferences and stuff where they are going just for the sake of going because they went last year and the year before and the year before, and really not receiving the real benefit as if they went to this conference for the first time as opposed to going for the tenth time. Has the government ever looked at reductions in that area of travel in the overall financial framework? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that through the exercise we have identified with departments on a 25 percent reduction that they would take those types of trips and be the first ones to drop off. It is something that we will continue to monitor as a government. For example, in the area within our department, the number of trips for duty travel conferences is about 41, and that works out to about $300 per employee that does that. So definitely not everybody goes on these things. Some of them are requirements when it comes to keeping certain classifications up to date, but hopefully through that 25 percent reduction, and as we have been told by Members to look at tightening that up even more, departments are doing their due diligence and seeing what areas are required. I agree that we see a lot of people travelling to different conferences even though they are held in the Territories, that is an area we are going to have to look at going forward as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank the Minister for his answers, and I have no further questions on 2-39. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Delorey.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My line of questioning was in the same area as Mr. Villeneuve's. I have gotten my questions answered so I will pass it along. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Delorey. We are still on page 2-39. The dollar figure for 2-39 is $4.999 million.

Agreed.

Going to page 2-41.

Agreed.

The total amount is $1.238 million.

Agreed.

Page 2-41, directorate, grants and contributions, the total contribution is $1.238 million.

Agreed.

Total grants and contributions, $1.238 million.

Agreed.

Page 2-43, labour relations and compensation services, operations expense, total operations expense is $7.576 million. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I get a breakdown on the other expenses for $2.1 million? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The breakdown for the operations expense, travel and transportation is $163,000; materials and supplies is $150,000; purchased services is $174,000; contract services is $762,000; fees and payments are $199,000; other expenses are $439,000 and again, that breaks down to the chargeback for the human resources system. Then computer hardware and software for $263,000. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lee asked my questions, so I will forego my question.