My question is for the Minister of Finance. Given that our estimate of operating surplus at $44 million has risen now to $69 million — that’s a $25 million difference — and we’ve firmed up the Building Canada Fund…. I think we’re $12 million to $15 million this year and then $35 million per year. Given that our intent, laid out before that, was to have a net savings of $30 million a year, considerably less than the sum of these, do these affect the budget? Do these affect the perspectives? Is there a little more opportunity for doing things a little differently?
I understood the Premier’s statement. We need to do things based on certainty. We can’t just assume there will be incomes and whatnot. But now here we have proven income with the $25 million from the surplus, $35 million from the Building Canada Fund, and part of that this year. Our net need is for a $60 million drop over two years, and this is one year. Is there some room for moving there?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.
Mr. Speaker, the end cash position of the government is one consideration of moving forward. It gives us a starting point for the upcoming budget planning cycle. What we have in this situation is that we also recognize some of those bump-ups that end up making our surplus position look a little healthier. It’s a one-time fund. They are not ongoing funds, and that’s the problem we’re going to have to tackle as we go forward.
The Building Canada Fund may be a one-time fund, but we know it’s a one-time fund for seven years. We have a pretty clear record of establishing surpluses greater than $19 million over what was estimated every year for the past number of years. This year we’ve surpassed that yet again. So I don’t think these can be categorized as one-time situations. Looking at our estimated revenues last year, it was about $60 million or $70 million less than turned out to be the case. We’re at the same estimate for the Mains this year.
Mr. Speaker, the one-time funds I speak of are those adjustments that happened from past corrections to transfers from the federal government. Those are one-time. The Building Canada Fund is cost-shared dollars, and it’s for capital only. There are no O&M dollars attached to that, so that’s something we can’t plan on — making increased expenditures to O&M that will continue to grow with forced growth on an annual basis.
As well, Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that the last government — and this is the issue…. You’re looking at the history of the government, where we’ve had to account for one-time funds in the year we receive them, but they really are three-year funds. For example, the Affordable Housing Trust: $50 million spread over three years. So those are accounted for in the year they’re allocated.
We have a number of other issues that are about to impact us in ’09–10. The Territorial Health Access Fund is due to run out in ’09–10. We have housing transfers from the federal government that are on a steady decline until 2033. As well, we have existing problems within our health authorities around some budgeting issues that we need to be prepared to deal with, and if we don’t take the opportunity while we have some flexibility, we will lose that all in years to come.
We recognize there are things that we have to bank on, and bank on, on a basis that will allow us to proceed. If we continue to go down the path we are, where revenue’s going — and I would refer to B3 in the actual Budget Address document…. If we don’t make any changes, we will see big problems in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The time for question period has expired. However, a lot of Members have supplementary questions. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for those comments, Mr. Minister. I don’t really disagree with any of them, except that I wouldn’t throw out history like that. I think we need to make use of the information we’ve got in the past.
I’d also like to point out we’ve done things in a rush here. We’ve got to get in gear. I disagree that we have to rush things, given that we have this $25 million unexpected surplus, which is about what we had anticipated in the reductions this year. So I don’t quite see the hurry that the Premier’s in.
