Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: $3.649 million.
Department of Education, Culture and Employment, Operations Expenditures, Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: $3.649 million, approved.
We’ll move along to page 8, Environment and Natural Resources, Operations Expenditures. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve cited a number of times under forest management that the department should take the initiative and start creating some type of revolving fund, knowing that quite often we go over budget in this area and we keep coming back to the Assembly and topping that up. I realize we’re paying what one could describe as actuals, but I’d certainly like to see the department investigate a process or that we start funding forest management properly so they don’t have to keep coming back each year.
I say that with the proviso that it’s reasonable to understand that some years are worse than others. I’m sure they’d be able to find a balance there so the Assembly doesn’t have to put money continually under the supplementary appropriation process for this. This should be an expense they should be able to estimate over a number of years and then use the appropriation process for, I should sadly call it, bad years.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my understanding of a revolving fund, it implies that there’s money moving in and money moving out. With forest fires generally the money moves out as we fight fires. The budget that has been set by the Assembly has been over a number of years set to be what we think is, based on a basic average, what we could make do with, with the understanding that if there is a bad fire season — hot weather or something happens that’s untoward — we will come back and ask for more money as opposed to…. My understanding is that in previous times they would have a fairly large fire budget, sometimes with a surplus at the end of the year that things would be done with. This way we have what we think we need to operate and hope for the best in terms of weather.
So the issue of a revolving fund is not clear to me in terms of the Member’s comment, but we have a budget that we think gives us a pretty good core of funding for a normal fire year.
Sorry. The terminology of “revolving fund” might not be exactly correct. I guess I mean put a fund in place that, for example, we funded to the tune of $5 million. They draw down on that $5 million. A good year means they only drew down $3 million. Then, of course, the normal appropriation process tops it up back to that fund and they draw down to it. The surplus wouldn’t be lost for the intent. It would almost be doing the same thing that we’re doing now. We’re just funding it after the fact, which often causes me to wonder why we bother even budgeting anything under the fire suppression point if we are just going to go to a process.
I guess I’m asking the Minister if he’s looking to examine another way of funding this process so we don’t have to go back to either special warrants or supp appropriations each season.
Mr. Chairman, there is over $5 million in the suppression budget, which we’ve taken basically as an average over the years that has been demonstrated to be enough for your normal year. We’ve proceeded on that basis. This year was an exceptionally hot, dry year. There were a number of major fires, some of them close to high values — at-risk communities, power stations and that type of thing — so it required additional funding. We are very sensitive to and very aware of the concern about special warrants. While we have to act with great dispatch, we’re very careful and make sure we come only when we’ve spent all the money we do have.
If the Member has any specific suggestions, we’d be happy to consider them. At this point this fire operation has been in play now for decades, and we’ve been working on what’s an adequate way to finance it. It’s the current process that’s there. If there are suggestions for change, we’d be happy to consider those.
Memory may not serve me correctly, but for some reason I seem to recall that we’ve gone to a special warrant process for the last five years that I’ve been in the Assembly. Has there been a supplementary appropriation to pick up the shortfall every year for the last five years? Would the Minister be able to tell me that? Am I correct?
We don’t have that level of detail, but we can commit to providing it to the committee.
I’ll wait until I get that level of detail from the Minister of Finance, and I’ll provide a suggestion after we have that comparison data.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. We’re on page 8. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick follow-up on Mr. Hawkins’ questions. Presumably there are years when there is a surplus, when there is what we would call a good fire season. What happens to that surplus, and is there a chance it could be rolled into a fund?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The hope is, of course, that those funds in that area would lapse. If there are other costs in other areas, you’d have to look. There is some ability to move money between activities, but clearly, if we don’t spend the budget, that money would be there as lapsed funds and would either return eventually to general revenue, or if there are other agreed upon expenditures that money can be moved to, they would be considered.
Thank you for the comments from the Minister. I have spent a little time in that department in a past life and can appreciate the interest in utility for any surplus funds. Perhaps that’s an opportunity to look at sharing a surplus and rolling part of it into a fund, if that would be financially and administratively possible. So no question.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d just like to seek clarification from the Minister. It was difficult to hear him. I wasn’t sure if he said that the surplus could be spent on something other than the fire suppression.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Within government and financial administration there is some ability to move money, depending on in between activities, within activities. There is a clear process to do that. If a department is managing its budget and they have issued a number of priorities but they have funds they can move within those parameters, then departments have some latitude to do that. The issue of lapses at year-end…. Some money is specifically coffered, as they say, or identified only for the purpose that it was voted for. In government there is some ability to move money within departments or within other areas of the budget.
Now I’m nervous about giving the fire suppression budget too much money, because who knows where it’ll end up.
Would fire suppression money be considered one of those earmarks of dollars that are strictly to be focused in on that type of line item only? Or if there was a surplus, could the fire suppression money be used, say, on Human Resources or maybe jet boats somewhere? If that’s the case, how many months would it take for this Assembly to get notice that the money was used for some other purpose and in what detail?
The money that’s before this Assembly was very specifically targeted for that one purpose only, which was for fire suppression, and it was laid out in the special warrant. As I have indicated, in many cases money that is laid out for government programs is often given a special designation so that there is only one use. Any other change from that has to go back for further approval. So this money here had one use and one use only that it was allowed for.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Are there any other questions? Ms. Bisaro.
Mr. Chair, just one question in regard to the possibility of a fund for unused dollars that are earmarked for fire suppression. Is there anything in our legislation or in our regulations that does not allow us to take unexpended funds from, say, forest management, intended for fire suppression, and put them into a fund as a holdover for another year?
That would require a change, I understand, to the legislation.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Any further questions?
We’re on page 8, Environment and Natural Resources, Operations Expenditures, Forest Management, Special Warrants: $2.95 million.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Operations Expenditures, Forest Management, Special Warrants: $2.95 million, approved.
Total Department, Special Warrants: $2.95 million.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Operations Expenditures, Total Department, Special Warrants: $2.95 million, approved.
Moving along to page 9, Municipal and Community Affairs, Capital Investment Expenditures, Regional Operations, Not Previously Authorized: negative $1.562 million.
Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, Capital Investment Expenditures, Regional Operations, Not Previously Authorized: negative $1.562 million, approved.
Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: negative $1.562 million.
Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, Capital Investment Expenditures, Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: negative $1.562 million, approved.
Moving along to page 10, Public Works and Services, Capital Investment Expenditures, Asset Management, Not Previously Authorized: $500,000.
Department of Public Works and Services, Capital Investment Expenditures, Asset Management, Not Previously Authorized: $500,000, approved.
Technology Service Centre, Not Previously Authorized: $1.3 million.
Department of Public Works and Services, Capital Investment Expenditures, Technology Service Centre, Not Previously Authorized: $1.3 million, approved.
Petroleum Products, Not Previously Authorized: $3.85 million. Mr. Bromley.
Mr. Chair, I can’t let this go without commenting once again on what some of the potential savings are by looking at fuel alternatives and transportation alternatives. I realize this one is for the aviation facility. It’s very difficult to avoid for Yellowknife, but it does raise the cost of maintaining tank farms. I just wanted to raise that as something we should be on the watch for. I’m sure the Minister is.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Mr. Chairman, the Member is correct; this issue has been identified. As we move forward with the upcoming year and what’s being proposed in terms of investments in alternative energy and as we plan to transition to other fuel sources, clearly we’ll be looking at the capital process as well so that we’re not putting in brand new facilities if we’re looking at changing the possible source of generation of electricity, for example, or running other facilities.
Mr. Bromley?
Thanks.
We’re on page 10, Petroleum Products, Not Previously Authorized: $3.85 million.
Department of Public Works and Services, Capital Investment Expenditures, Petroleum Products, Not Previously Authorized: $3.85 million, approved.
Moving along to page 11, Health and Social Services, Capital Investment Expenditures, Program Delivery Support, Not Previously Authorized: $952,000.
Department of Health and Social Services, Capital Investment Expenditures, Program Delivery Support, Not Previously Authorized: $952,000 approved.
Health Services Programs, Not Previously Authorized: negative $5.432 million.
Department of Health and Social Services, Capital Investment Expenditures, Health Services Programs, Not Previously Authorized: negative $5.432 million, approved.
Community Health Programs, Not Previously Authorized: negative $2.5 million. Mr. Robert McLeod.
Mr. Chair, a couple of items on this page: the two negatives. I think we’d heard some explanation as to why we’re seeing the negatives, but I look here and see the numbers and see they’re going to be put back in the ’09–10 budgets for the respective projects. I’m kind of curious as to why we feel that we need to go through this particular exercise. Is it something that we are just starting? Is it something that’s been going on before? It’s going to show up in the ’09–10 respective budgets, so the numbers in those will go up. I’m just curious as to why we feel that there’s a need to start showing some negative numbers.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Aumond.
Mr. Chair, for the last couple of years the government has carried over quite a large sum of capital carry-overs, and those have sort of been snowballing over the last couple of years and piling on the plans that we’ve been bringing forward every year on an annual basis. So we thought it might be time to have a look and see where we were with respect to each project in the capital plan — if we have a carry-over and we know we are delayed for some reason or another — and come up with a realistic schedule about what we are actually going to be spending in ’08–09 and recognize those delays to provide an accurate cash flow for Members when considering a capital plan going forward.
Thank you, Mr. Aumond. Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Aumond said that is something they thought they’d try this year. I just find that we’ve lived with the carry-overs — and I know the numbers were large…. To me this just seems like a bookkeeping exercise so it will show that our carry-overs for this particular year are not as large as they used to be. So it appears to me that it is just a bit of a bookkeeping exercise. I don’t know if it is just an optics thing or if there is really some value in doing it this way. I think that’s just more of a comment, but if the Minister or Mr. Aumond would like to respond, then I’m fine with that.
Minister Miltenberger.
Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a one-time process. The intent is, as I indicated previously, to have the necessary amendments to the Financial Administration Act in place for the next go-round. The other thing is that we are now doing capital in the fall, and this would give us a more accurate reflection of where we stand as we look at approving projects. Normally the carry-overs and such wouldn’t be dealt with until sometime later in the spring, which would be several months down the road. This gives us, in our opinion, for this one cycle, an opportunity to have a clearer idea of where we stood financially with cash flows and projects.
Thanks to the Minister for that. That kind of clarifies it a bit. He said that it was just a one-time requirement, and it’s to better reflect the numbers because of the shift from doing the infrastructure budget a different way. So this is just a one-time thing. It’s not something that we can expect to see in the future. And if that’s the reason for having the negatives in this particular appropriation, then I don’t have much of a problem with that. It just seemed to be too much of a bookkeeping exercise to me. But I appreciate the Minister’s explanation.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I didn’t really hear a question, more of a comment. So we’ll move on. We’re on Health and Social Services, Capital Investment Expenditures. We’re on Community Health Programs, not previously authorized, negative $2.5 million.
Department of Health and Social Services, Capital Investment Expenditures, Community Health Programs, Not Previously Authorized: negative $2.5 million, approved.
Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: negative $6.98 million.
Department of Health and Social Services, Capital Investment Expenditures, Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: negative $6.98 million, approved.
