Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In order to maybe try to provide clarity, if I could just point out the information that we have, the existing base budget for the Charlotte Vehus was $842,000. They put out a bid for a contract that came in at $1.459 million. That contract was awarded. The amount of money they had in that program area, $842,000, a gap of $547,000 that has been recognized as a base deficiency, and we are here to seek funding. Currently, there has been an adjustment to 2013-2014. Up until now the authority has been absorbing that cost and running a deficit which is no longer sustainable. The contract amounts have been fairly consistent. This is not a case where there was a contract awarded for $842,000 and the price was subsequently recognized to be inadequate on the contractor’s part. It was just the funding in the organization wasn’t there to cover that $1.459 million.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So the awarded contract to the Charlotte Vehus was $1.459 million and the Beaufort-Delta Health and Social Services Authority was the authority running specific programs for the Charlotte Vehus Home, or was it Charlotte Vehus running those programs and Beaufort-Delta covered them up, and now that Beaufort-Delta is in debt because they were kind of supplementing the Charlotte Vehus Home when Charlotte… Can I just get that clarity?
Yes, the Member is correct; the contract was for $1.459 million. The amount of money in that program area that the Inuvik Health and Social Services had in their budget was $842,000, so a $547,000 shortfall that they have been covering off as an authority and running a deficit to do that. They’ve reached a point where it’s no longer fiscally sustainable, and as we try to adjust and have realistic budgets, this funding area, clearly, was underfunded. Hence this request and an ongoing target adjustment of this same amount for both facilities of $850,000.
I guess my next final question is: Why hadn’t the authority or department noticed this back when it started, when we first started getting our deficits and addressed it then, rather than addressing it now? Especially this year when we had this big controversy with the contracts. Why did the department not catch this ahead of time and adjust it then, instead of continuing to put this authority and government further and further in debt?
There has been, speaking as the former Health Minister, an ongoing struggle with the authorities and deficits. Clearly, as they go through their operations items like this, program areas like this that are unfunded and the authority can no longer afford to carry that without incurring a deficit are coming to light and being identified, and we’re coming forward to clear them off. The same as we’ve done with some of the costs, if I refer back to the Stanton issue, as well, with their dietary, laundry, and those types of service areas.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Moses. Health and Social Services, operations expenditures, community wellness and social services, not previously authorized, $1.385 million.
Agreed.
Health and Social Services, operations expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $2.835 million.
Agreed.
Page 12, Justice, services to the government, Justice, operations expenditures, not previously authorized, $91,000.
Agreed.
Justice, operations expenditures, legal aid services, not previously authorized, $34,000.
Agreed.
Justice, operations expenditures, court services, not previously authorized, $50,000.
Agreed.
Justice, operations expenditures, community justice and corrections, not previously authorized, $249,000.
Agreed.
Justice, operations expenditures, services to the public, not previously authorized, $34,000.
Agreed.
Justice, operations expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $458,000.
Agreed.
Page 13, Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, directorate and administration, not previously authorized, $52,000.
Agreed.
Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, education and culture, not previously authorized, $492,000.
Agreed.
Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, advanced education, not previously authorized, $6,000.
Agreed.
Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, income security, not previously authorized, $47,000.
Agreed.
Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $597,000.
Agreed.
Page 14, Transportation, operations expenditures, corporate services, not previously authorized, negative $52,000.
Agreed.
Transportation, operations expenditures, airports, not previously authorized, $146,000.
Agreed.
Transportation, operations expenditures, highways, not previously authorized, $95,000.
Agreed.
Transportation, operations expenditures, marine, not previously authorized, $12,000.
Agreed.
Transportation, operations expenditures, road licensing and safety, not previously authorized, $25,000.
Agreed.
Transportation, operations expenditures, total department, not previously authorized, $226,000.
Agreed.
Page 15, Industry, Tourism and Investment, operations expenditures, corporate management, not previously authorized, $1,000.
Agreed.
Industry, Tourism and Investment, operations expenditures, minerals and petroleum resources, not previously authorized, $36,000.
Agreed.
Industry, Tourism and Investment, operations expenditures, energy, not previously authorized, $439,000. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to question the decision against the community’s wishes for a Whati transmission line design, when I believe one of the principles of this government is to support local energy generation. I’d like to ask what the reasoning is. How does this support that principle when we know that there is, for example, a proposal for a mineral development in the area, which is currently proposed to use diesel generation of power and increase our greenhouse gas emissions, lend no support in terms of economic development and jobs and so on for people, when we could be developing local power within Whati, recognizing that it is a big hit on the capital front-line side, but we’ve been postponing this for a long time? It’s time to get on with it.
I believe Yellowknife from time to time, certainly in low-water years, has to turn to our diesel generators. It’s the same for Behchoko, also on that same power system. Now we’re proposing to add another community and possibly even another mine site without adding to the capacity of production. A couple of things that bring this into question. How does this fit with our principles and the current demand that already frequently exceeds the current power generation?
