Debates of March 9, 2005 (day 52)

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So $300,000 is the request to restore the cash flow. For the total of this year, what was the total amount of doubtful accounts that was booked? I would just like to get a sense of how much over the forecast we are on this one. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The amount is in the area of $2 million for doubtful accounts. For this year, it has been about $500,000, but we have been able to, from within, eat about $200,000, but feel that we cannot take the rest of this. That is why it has to be booked in. So I believe we are over the $2 million mark. I think it is just over $2 million. That isn’t just one year; that is for as long as the taxes are in arrears. We do not write off the taxes that are in arrears. They continue to be booked and accumulate interest. So on an annual basis, for example, if we had 100 percent of taxpayers that were invoiced pay their taxes for this year, we would still have to make an account for some increase in that area because of the existing accounts that weren’t paid off; they would accrue further interest. We would have to book that as well. The Property Taxation Act is very clear in that area so it continues to accrue interest even though it is put into the doubtful accounts area.

In fact, over the last probably five years, we have had remittance in taxes in the area of 95 percent when you look at it. For example, tax collected as of January 31, 2005, for the existing year taxes that were issued, we have about 91 percent of taxes being collected on the invoices issued. When we look back to the year 2000, the taxes that were issued, we have received about 95 percent of that in payment. For example, if we were at 91 percent for 2004, we continue to go after that source of taxes and people would continue to pay it down, and it would get accounted to the year it was issued. For example, in 2000, there may have been a 90 percent pay rate, but as they paid it down, it goes to that year. For example, in 2000, it has been 95 percent of collection rate. In 2001, it was the same thing, 95 percent. In 2002, same thing. In 2003-04, it has been about just over 91 percent. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That is great. I have a much better idea of how that system works. To the $300,000 before us here, I wouldn’t expect the Minister to put out any names of individuals or corporations here before the House, but I am wondering whether…I think he mentioned there were potentially some corporate failures involved here. Could we have seen these coming and perhaps predicted that there may have been some default in taxes here? Was the department really caught by surprise by these particular corporations or have they been on the radar screen? Should we have predicted it? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, it would be very difficult for us to try and forecast if a company was struggling and surviving and continuing to make their payments or preparing to shut down and go into receivership. We are more in a reactionary mode when we become aware that a company has filed for protection or have left the North and are no longer doing business. In some cases, for example, in the fuel tax portion, we became aware of it when we did not receive the previous month’s remuneration or payment on the fuel taxes and started making some calls. A cheque was then issued for the month after that and then in continuing to try to follow up on the previous month, by the time we got to it, they had shut the doors and we lost a couple more months on the fuel tax side. Again, for example, if a company purchases its bulk fuel from out of the Territories, and they come into the Territories, we still tax that and we go back and try to recover it. Again, on a monthly basis, they would pay us. But if they don’t, because they haven’t picked it up here, it is a little bit harder and we have to go after them for some money. In this case, we lost approximately three months I believe.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Madam Chair. He answered my questions already. Thank you.

Okay. Very good. We are on page 7 of the bill, Finance, operations expenditures, treasury, not previously authorized, $300,000, total department, $300,000.

Agreed.

Thank you. Page 8, Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, directorate, not previously authorized, $241,000, total department, $241,000. Mr. Yakeleya.

Madam Chair, the Village of Fort Simpson has a number of $42,000. Can the Minister explain to me in terms of where this $42,000 is coming from?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, when the Village of Fort Simpson went to renew its water licence, the water board instructed that they buy a back-up generator for that operation. That wasn’t accounted for when they had put their plans together. This is a result of having to meet the requirement for the water licence. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Are there any other communities that are going to require this type of back-up generator in terms of when they go for renewing their licence? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not aware of any myself. From this end, this was a one-time situation. Unless the Minister is aware of what communities are about to run out of their licences and have to go for renewal. Again, some may already have that, so we’re not sure of that. Right now, as we’ve gone forward with this one, this is a one-time situation. As you see it, we’d have to wait and see for every hearing, I guess, as to what may happen. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Surely the Minister could estimate in terms of the type of situation in the village of Fort Simpson to the other communities in the Northwest Territories that may be expiring on their water licence that could possibly be asked to provide some additional equipment to their water treatment plant, I suppose, so we could at least have some type of indication that we could be coming back for more supplementaries. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d have to ask the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs if he has that detail.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. McLeod.

Madam Chair, in response to the Member’s question, no, we don’t anticipate having any other sewer lagoons requiring back-up power. Most of the sewer lagoons in the NWT, as the Member knows, don’t have any power. The Fort Simpson system is a unique system. It’s a treatment centre, a treatment process that requires power as part of the new water licence. It required a back-up generator that we hadn’t anticipated and they hadn’t built into the cost. So we had to go for an extraordinary funding request to accommodate that.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn’t think I was asking questions on the sewer lagoon. That’s good to know about this. The other one is about Wrigley in terms of $165,000 going into that community. Is there something that we also didn’t anticipate in terms of these types of dollars for the community of Wrigley? Could I ask the Minister for some clarification on the $165,000, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, in the case of Wrigley, the contract that was let for delivery of water services was cancelled and the owner of the business had a unit that was his unit. When the community had to take over that water supply, they did not have a water truck so they had to go and get a water truck. That again was not accounted for in the budget process and was something that wasn’t planned as the contract ended earlier than was anticipated. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope we have some short change on this because if we tie that water truck to the community in Wrigley and not let it go anywhere if the contract ever does expire with the community. On the other one is the Enterprise Settlement Corporation which has $50,000 on their line item. Can the Minister explain what that $50,000 is about?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, as this came forward we were informed that through the Enterprise community with the increased traffic load with the heavy trucks they needed to be able to set up a marshalling area for all the equipment. That is something that was not part of their normal plan. So this came forward as a request to cover those costs for that development. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The marshalling area, could you explain that to me because I understand that…Is this some kind of land development or land for Enterprise? Are they seeking land for some development? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this is for land development in the area of a staging site for trucks to either switch off their loads or change loads and be able to have their vehicles there away from the centre part of the community. It’s broken down. Again, this is to put a plan together for the community and about $37,000 of that is for a consultant, then $13,000 to implement the plan. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Yakeleya.

Madam Chair, this land development staging site, I take it that other groups have been involved. Is Enterprise in the area in terms of going through some land claims settlement in the area that’s being developed? That’s a lot of area for a staging site. I want to ask that to the Minister. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this is a result of the immediate impacts as a result of the development, the increased traffic load that’s going through that area. Enterprise is right within a section and a junction of where a lot of trucks would travel and stop off a weigh scale station there. The community is feeling that impact at this point and the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs has granted their request for their land use plan in the area of their staging area. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Yakeleya, are you finished? You’re good? Okay. I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, I’ll just wait until we get to page 13. That’s where my question is at. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. We were on page 8, Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, directorate, not previously authorized, $241,000, total department, $241,000.

Agreed.

Page 9, Public Works and Services, operations expenditures, asset management, not previously authorized, $81,000, total department, $81,000.

Agreed.

Page 10, Health and Social Services, operations expenditures, program delivery support, not previously authorized, negative $291,000.

Agreed.