Debates of October 22, 2004 (day 26)

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, when the funding is forwarded and a proposal put in, there is an accounting of it done through the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development and they have to show how they’d use that money and what purposes it was used for and if, in fact, it did fit what the requirements were. So there is an accounting back to the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chairman, could the Minister advise what kinds of programs or projects or initiatives are being contemplated here by the Fort Smith Metis Council? I’m trying to get a sense here of where public funds are going and if there is a well-thought-out plan and a way of measuring and reporting back on what this money has done. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this portion is our share of it. It’s cost shared with the Fort Smith Metis Council. I don’t have a copy of the actual proposal that was put in and what the intention of the funding is. I believe the Minister of RWED does have some information on that though.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Bell.

Thank you. The proposal was received from the Fort Smith Metis Council prior to signing, obviously, the contribution agreement. The funding request was to be used to purchase snowmobiles, ATVs, outboard motors, boats and various equipment required to help harvesters. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, that was the general practice of all organizations that did get these funds. It was again intended for harvesters and to support them in maintaining their harvesting practices. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In an earlier debate in this session we talked quite a bit about accountability and debt and the requirement of government to monitor and keep track of where these funds are going to ensure that at least they’re going into the purpose originally intended. On this one here, like all others, I would like to ask if there is a way we are indeed monitoring, showing proof, and that we have a way if things don’t go as planned that we can recover or have some recourse to getting back these funds. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, one of the requirements to qualify under this is that an annual financial report would be provided to the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development. As well, I should state that the practice of cost sharing just between the government and ourselves is one level, but as well from the organization to the harvester it’s not a full purchase of equipment, it’s cost shared at that level as well. I can ask the Minister responsible to provide more detail on that reporting requirement. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Bell.

Thank you. I think the Minister has already indicated some of the criteria around the program, matching dollars from the organization and the money can’t be used for administrative purposes, there is a requirement for record keeping. The contribution agreement I imagine is typical of the contribution agreements that we’ve done with this program. There’s a separate bank account set up to administer the account. There’s a requirement of an equal contribution to come from the organization. There are payment terms set out. There’s a list of eligible expenses. Then there’s provision for audits. There’s a requirement for record keeping. The organization has to maintain good financial records according to GNWT accepted accounting principles for third parties. They have to provide, as the Minister has already indicated, an audited financial report to the Minister. There’s an allowance that permits employees of RWED to access the books on reasonable notice, et cetera. So I’m quite satisfied with the conditions and terms of the contribution agreement. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Roland.

No, nothing further, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Braden. Resource management and economic development, not previously authorized, $200,000.

Agreed.

Forest management, special warrants, $4.651 million.

Agreed.

Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know what’s budgeted for fire suppression every year is in the tune of $7.4 million. I just wanted to ask the Minister if during years where we have damp seasons, very low fire conditions and we have dollars left over in our budget, if the department is going to consider or can consider putting that money into a revolving fund which can accumulate over several years instead of putting it back into general revenue so we don’t have to come out with any supplementary appropriations during years of extreme fire conditions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would be willing to look at establishing a revolving fund. That’s something I can bring back to my FMB colleagues as something we would look at putting into place. We do have a history of revolving accounts within the Government of the Northwest Territories. So we are willing to look at that process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Forest management, special warrants, $4.651 million.

Agreed.

Total department, special warrants, $4.651 million.

Agreed.

Total department not previously authorized, $215,000.

Agreed.

Page 16, Department of Public Works and Services, capital investment expenditure, petroleum products, not previously authorized, $1.08 million.

Agreed.

Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To this item, the aspect of repairs and maintenance to fuel tank farms is something that is pretty well established. We’ve got considerable familiarity with this over the years. Something that’s unusual about this is a project of this size, just over $1 million, comes to us as not previously authorized. The maintenance and placement of tank farms is usually something we can plan on quite normally through the business planning process. Why does the Sachs Harbour project appear on this more urgent basis? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this project was on the books and a planned program was in place. We did have to bring in an individual to look at this who specializes in these types of structures. There were some noted concerns about it and in the report we were given, we were informed that there was a high potential of environmental risk here if we did not move this project ahead. So what you see here is the fact that we’ve had to bring the cash flow up sooner than we had originally planned. The original plan for this year would have been about $20,000 for some initial work. In 2005-06, about $225,000 and then the bulk happening in 2006-07 and 2007-08. Because of the situation we find ourselves in, we’ve had to advance all of that money, so the bulk of it will happen this year as highlighted by this request. Then we are looking at a large part of that happening in the 2005-06 year. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

So we had something that hadn’t been anticipated. Is this a repair or refit, Mr. Chairman, or does this advance the whole project in its entirety for replacement?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a replacement. It is not a refit. As I said, we did realize there was a concern here and put a plan in place to fix that. On the report coming back from the consultant, we were made aware that we would have to move that project ahead significantly.

As well, as I stated earlier, that is the full replacement of the tank and the fuel lines that they use to refill that facility. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Finally, does this estimate include the cost of decommissioning and cleaning up the old facility? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this budget does allow for about $250,000 for the removal of the vertical tank and the access vaults and a portion of the three resupply lines, and then $25,000 provided for the remediation of some of the soils in that area. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that this item is here because it’s been moved forward by two years because the experts are saying that unless something is done to fix this, there might be an environmental disaster happening. I don’t know to what extent. Could I get the Minister to tell me about the time frame? Is the work being done already? I would hate to see anything like that happen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, yes, the money is being spent in this year. What has been happening is we hired the consultants initially to look at the facility, as well as a replacement process that goes on. There are tests being done on the three resupply pipelines, as well there is an awarding of the construction contract for two vertical tanks and an order of resupply piping and a number of other things. So this is work that will be done so they can be prepared for the barge shipping dates in the summer of 2005. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Petroleum products, not previously authorized, $1.08 million.