Agreed.
Page 12, Transportation, operations expenditures. Ms. Bisaro, did you have your hand up? Yes, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask, the supp is indicating $56,000 for increased utility costs, another $382,000 further down in highways and then again in marine and again in road licensing and safety. I look at the supplementary reserve amount that went to Transportation; it shows $800,000, which was for utility budget deficiencies. Do we have the $996,000 for utilities deficiencies plus the $800,000 from the supplementary reserve? Is that all going to utility deficiencies? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Kalgutkar.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Transportation received about $800,000 in supplementary appropriations in 2007-08. That brought the utilities budget for the other department to about $5.1 million. To keep that budget at the same level in 2008-09, it allocated $800,000 of its supp reserve into the budget to keep it at $5.1 million. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Kalgutkar. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you for the explanation. I’m not sure I totally followed it. Does that mean, then, that the department budgeted in 2008-09 for utility costs which they knew they were going to go over? That kind of is what I thought I heard Mr. Kalgutkar say, that the budgeted amount was too low and they knew that going into their budget in 2008-09, so they had to take the reserve and put it in there before they ever started. If that is the explanation, I’d like that confirmed. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister Miltenberger.
Mr. Chairman, the budget in 2007-08 was too low, resulting in a requirement for a supp which brought them up to the level that they are at. Then they used the money that they were given from their share of the supplementary appropriation to maintain that figure. The numbers we are seeing that would assume are costs over and above keeping their utility costs at that level that they got the supp for back in 2007-08.
At the risk of belabouring the point, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am having trouble understanding the budgeted dollar amount for utilities in 2008-09. Was it totally out of line? How come we had to put $800,000 in from the supplementary reserve right off the bat?
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Ms. Melhorn.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2007-08, the department required to come back to request supplementary funding in the order of $800,000 because their budget was not sufficient to meet their costs. Recognizing going into the 2008-09 fiscal year that they would need additional funding in their utilities budget, they allocated $800,000 from the supp reserve to their utilities budget since they recognize that the budget, as it stood, was insufficient. The amounts in the supp bill today represent the fact that, despite having put the $800,000 into their 2008-09 budget, high fuel prices in 2008-09 resulted in the budget being insufficient in 2008-09 as well, despite having put the $800,000 into the budget.
Thanks for the explanation. I guess it just begs the question as to why the budgeted figure for utilities didn’t start with the $800,000 in it. I will just leave that as a comment. I don’t think the question needs an answer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Just to confirm, we are on page 12. Transportation, operations expenditures, airports, not previously authorized, $56,000. Mr. Krutko.
Just in regards to the supp again. I am just wondering why it wasn’t brought forward during the fiscal year 2007-08 when you did have the deficit and which you were able to account for that fiscal year than bringing it forward to 2008-09. Why wasn’t it addressed at that time?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Minister.
There was a supp done in 2007-08 to cover off the $800,000. They were short out of their supp reserve, a portion of last year. They put $800,000 in out of it to keep their utilities figure where it was so it was dealt with in both years.
Again, just following up on Ms. Bisaro’s question, why is it that we gave every department an increase in regards to their expenditures so they don’t have to come forward for more supps by $10 million? But yet, here we are again with $20 million in supps. The whole intention of that was so this type of activity doesn’t happen, so we are not here talking about something that happened in 2007. I’d like to know exactly why we would allow that decision to be made, assuming that we won’t have these types of situations which we are dealing with today. But yet we are here again dealing with a $23 million supp. Again, why did you make that decision on one hand to give all this money to these departments so they don’t have to use up all the supps in the fiscal year? But yet when we seem that to whomever thought of that idea was off by the mark by at least $30 million.
Mr. Chairman, during this time period we were faced with extremely high rising and extremely high fuel costs before they peaked out and started to come down. A lot of the budgeting was done trying to compensate for those costs that were going up in some cases on a monthly or sometimes even daily basis and reflects that pressure of that time. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, it is good for this government to use this scenario. The communities are in the same predicament. They have the same types of costs. They have basically deficits that are running because of these unpredictable costs. The budget isn’t designed to deal with these types of trends, but yet we are not there to help out the communities. Now we are saying sorry, you are on your own. You have to budget. Sorry, you have to fend for yourselves. I would like to know exactly why is it that we allow this to happen in government but yet we are telling the municipalities and the small communities you have a deficit. Get out of it. Is there any help for the communities in regards to their deficits using the same argument of basically high fuel energy costs in those communities? Is there going to be a supp for the communities also?
I understand the formula that they have builds in and offsets this budget that is currently before the House. It has a 9 percent increase for communities in a time when the average growth of government is down probably in the 1, 2 or 3 percent range. Plus we have managed to offset 16 cents a litre for our other fuels this year because of some of the benefits we have realized by coming over the top and the lowering price of fuel. Thank you.
Thank you for the 16 cents price reduction, but they are still paying $1.56 a litre in those communities. That didn’t really do much by way of bringing them in line with other communities where they have to pay $1.20 a litre. Again, that is neither here nor there. How come we can do it for government departments but we can’t do it for agencies and communities to help them deal with this issue such as departments?
Municipal and Community Affairs will be before this House soon. The issues about the type of arrangement, the funding arrangements, the formulas, which I believe are very generous, are there for review. We have built a 9 percent increase into the budget. We have given, though the Member may say it is neither here nor there, 16 cents a litre. I would suggest the pressure we were getting from the Members themselves about bringing that price down would indicate that 16 cents a litre is still nothing that could be sneezed at in this day and age and that we are constantly looking at ways to be as supportive as we can to all communities. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my point is that we are telling other people to tighten their belts, operate within your expenditure levels and basically be cognizant of the situation around you, and yet again we have communities that are in a deficit situation. People have to pay more power rates. People are paying more in regards to their water bills. People are paying more by way of their expenditures in their communities and basically they are telling us that they are struggling, but yet they see government operating in this manner. No wonder they get frustrated with the way government spends its money.
You are telling somebody to do something. You should practice what you preach, especially when it comes to people in the Northwest Territories and municipalities and governments so that they basically operate like this. Any time they have a deficit, they can just call for more dollars and say, oh, I am not going to have to worry about the department and government. I’m going to get bailed out anyways, so I will just go to the Legislative Assembly and get a supp for $20 million and it will be hunky dory. We are in business again.
I think this government has to face the reality that you are accountable to the public. When you spend money, it should be within good reason. When we are given more money than they actually need and they still run deficits, I think there is something wrong with the picture.
I would like to point out, as well, that the majority of this money is program money that is spent at the community level. The money for fuel and utilities is for the cost across the government in all of the communities, not just headquarters. We have built in the $60 million to try to do alternate energy to lower cost of living. We have a 9 percent increase for communities. I recognize the issue by the concern raised by the Member, but we have to keep in mind that a lot of this money is program money for communities. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Once again, we’re on page 12, Transportation, operations expenditures, airports, not previously authorized, $56,000.
Agreed.
Highways, $682,000.
Agreed.
Marine, $244,000.
Agreed.
Road licensing and safety, $14,000.
Agreed.
Total department, $996,000.
Agreed.
Page 13. Environment and Natural Resources, operations expenditures, forest management, not previously authorized, $386,000.
Agreed.
Total department, $386,000.
Agreed.
Page 14, Health and Social Services, capital investment expenditures, health services programs, not previously authorized, $250,000.
Agreed.
Community health programs, $2.750 million.
Agreed.
Total department, $3 million.
Agreed.
Does the committee agree that consideration of Tabled Document 17-16(3) is concluded? Thank you, committee, for keeping us on our toes. We’ll go to page 15. Transportation, capital investment expenditures, highways, not previously authorized, $3 million.
Agreed.
Total department, $3 million. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to know, with the Building Canada Fund, what’s the availability of other communities to be able to take advantage of this program in regard to the Community Access Road Program, such as the community of Aklavik.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.
