Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, you know, something like interoperability framework is not likely something that we're going to see show up in the priorities of the 20th Assembly as a line item so to say, and so I'm wondering what suggestions the Department of Finance would have to the next Assembly coming in to be able to push this item to be able to actually deliver results across the government? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm conscious of time so, look, I can say there is again yet, again, there's another framework being developed, Madam Chair. But, again, you need a framework to know within what how to what the parameters are of what you're trying to achieve. Interoperability, again I completely share this as being a priority. I have drank this KoolAid. We can't the systems around going to work together if they're not designed to work together and you can't train people to have them working within the same systems if they don't know what they're working within, so it does take a framework to achieve those things. It's enterprise architecture is probably is another one I'm going to introduce you to as being the thing that is used to actually create that interoperability. So it's being worked on, and I'd be happy to perhaps provide a bit of a written update to Members rather than trying to do it in limited space of time here. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Kam Lake.
Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm good with that. And I think too what would kind of be helpful is to kind of is to better understand what the steps are in getting there and more from a high level. Like, I'm not asking to create a framework before you create a framework. But understanding, you know, are we is this, you know, a three, four, five, tenyear transition for the GNWT? Because my concern is from kind of the human side of it where, you know, how do we track and use and analyze data to be more strategic in our decisionmaking if all the systems that we need to be able to talk one another aren't able to do that. And so I look forward to continuing this conversation with the Minister. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any further comments under the Office of the Chief Information Officer? Seeing none, please turn to page 166.
Finance, Office of the Chief Information Officer, operations expenditure summary, 20232024 Main Estimates, $21,834,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We will now to the Office of the Comptroller General, beginning on page 169 with information items on page 170 and 171. Are there any questions?
Seeing no questions, please turn to page 169.
Finance, Office of the Comptroller General, operations expenditure summary, 20232024 Main Estimates, $93,016,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
There are additional information items on page 172 to 175. Are there any questions? Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I started to ask some questions about the heritage fund before and then it twigged me to some I think I got an explanation for this but I'm still not quite sure about this.
So there's figures shown on the heritage fund, on page 172, then in the there's a Roman numeral 14, there's a summary of resource revenue sharing, and the contributions to the heritage fund shown on that page are not the same as what I seem to see on page 172. And they're out by, you know, literally millions of dollars. So what are these two line items actually showing and why are they different? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Madam Chair, let's hand this to Mr. Courtoreille, please.
Thank you. Mr. Courtoreille.
Thanks, Madam Chair. The schedule on page Roman numeral 14 is the summary of the resource revenue sharing. And that's a schedule that shows the breakdown of how resource revenues would be shared between Indigenous governments and ultimately with the heritage fund. It's really a different schedule than what is presented over in the finance section under the information item for the heritage fund. You can track the actual contribution to the heritage fund for the actual year. So for 20212022, it was $5.6 million. And Members will see that over in the corresponding schedule for the heritage fund. But for those future years, the heritage fund schedule just shows the amount of the budget that the Department of Finance has appropriated for. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks for that. So then if there's actuals shown on Roman numeral 14, I can see how it lines up with 20212022 back on page 172. But 20222023, there's just this placeholder amount of $7.6 million on page 172 whereas on Roman numeral 14 it actually shows, you know, $2.026 million, which is significantly less than 7.6. So which figure is right, and why wouldn't we be using the actuals that are shown on 14 put them into 172? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, again, 172 is just the budgeted and I shouldn't say "just." It is a budgeted amount. There are other numbers within the budget that are based on a projection, then there are standard bases by which they come up with the projections, while meanwhile over on the yeah, we don't put actuals into the budget, you just put budgeted or projected amounts. That's where you will see the way the department's budgets get built up, of having the actuals. Main estimates is the budget, then the revised is things that have changed over time, and then finally ending again with new main estimates.
But I can go back one more time and perhaps to yes, the only number that you're going to see common is the 20212022 contribution because at this point we know what that actual number was. The actuals for what the actual revenue was and then the grants to start to derive what the revenue is and what the contribution amounts will be that starts to feed into future years. But the 7.6 is still a historical, just average, not based on what an actual presented number would be. I'll stop there and see if that's got me any further, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Okay. No, I'm sorry. Okay, look, I get that 20232024 is a guesstimate. We're budgeting ahead there. But for 20222023, the one on Roman numeral 14 seems to show actuals unless I'm totally out to lunch. So I can see where the you know, for 20212022, the $5,656,000 lines up with other income for 20212022 on page 172. But why is there just like this $7.6 million then for 20222023 in the main estimates when, you know, on page 14 it shows $2.026 million there's a contribution to the heritage fund.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, again, it's yes, I mean, I'm not sure if we're going to get past this, Madam Chair. So 7.6 is just it's a budget estimate and in 14, it is where we are at in terms of the revenue forecast. I suggest let me try one more time if I can get Mr. Courtoreille to just walk through the math, both of the 7.6 of how we calculate it, and then compared to the math on how we calculate at page 14, please.
Thank you. Mr. Courtoreille.
Thanks, Madam Chair. So just to clarify, the amounts on Roman numeral page 14 for the year 20222023, those are still budgeted numbers; they're not actual numbers. And for the revised main estimates, we're forecasting that number to be $3.8 million. But it will likely be a different number once the actuals come in. We don't know what the exact number will be. Eventually, once those actuals are sorted out, you'll see that actual contribution to the heritage fund reflected on the heritage fund schedule under the Department of Finance. The 7.6 number is the appropriated number that the department has in its budget, and it seems reasonable to put that for those budget years going forward. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
I think it's too late in the day for me to try to quibble about whether we're going to use actuals when we actually know the amount versus budgeted amounts that are not reflective of reality. So I think I'll just stop there. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask some questions around the liquor and cannabis revolving fund. And I note that NWTers are increasingly spending more money on cannabis, according to our main estimates here. Seeing an over $1 million rise from last year. So my question is and I'm going to caveat this with that I grew up in British Columbia. So the cannabis culture has been around for a very long time in that province. And through that, there's a lot of, you know, opportunities for things such as cafes and other cannabisrelated businesses that are currently at the moment not allowed in the Northwest Territories. And I guess my question is there a plan at any point to look at this to this sort of operating model of just the government selling and such and maybe really look at cannabis as a bit of our economic diversity type portfolio and see if there's a place there for a bit of a cannabis retail or sector? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, so the process right now is a proponent would have to be designated as a vendor. There are currently three private stores which certainly has, as I think the Member's pointed out, gone up and that it may be one of the explanations simply by fact of having more access that there are now more licensed and legal sales. So there are ongoing processes I understand, and that's some of the other and sorry, just to also the privatelyrun store that is existing as well, which took that off the hands of the government to run. There are RFPs out typically that would go out to see if somebody wants to run a cannabis store in a community, and someone can bid on it. There's been at times difficultly getting people to bid on those RFPs, certainly at least outside of Yellowknife. Yes, and certainly there's you know, to the extent that there's interest in that, I you know, if we hear there's interest in that then that can drive whether or not more RFPs may want to issue or not. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess I'm also sort of thinking trying to think a little bit more outside of the box of just the sale of cannabis itself. And the reason I bring this up is I have a constituent who is a cannabis influencer, and they are looking to see ways in which they could, potentially, you know, do growing workshops, things like that, and such as any other business in the Northwest Territories maybe be looking to have some startup cost funding, SEED funding, things like that. And I know that's not this hat today that you're wearing or the Minister's wearing. But, you know, I'm curious to know if there's any sort of innovative conversation around this type of business. It is a huge market. There is a lot there. There's tourism things with it. So I guess I'm just curious to hear the Minister speak a bit about that. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, Madam Chair, I mean, that's I mean, my first reaction is that's interesting. And not to make it too simple of an answer but I don't have a good answer right now on the fly, and I think it actually is one that does deserve a bit more of an answer and one that might, you know just more of us going and looking back. I mean, there are certainly restrictions and rules around, you know, even sales of liquor as well as sales of cannabis. I'm certainly hearing, you know, different aspects of that issue in the Northwest Territories, whether or not to regulate a different type of venue. Again, bigger conversation. So if I might suggest, this may be one that if I can just have a bit of time with the department to see what barriers there are within the legislation or regulations, put that to the Member, and then obviously if Members want to push for changes then they would be then well placed to do that knowing exactly what it is that they would need to see changed to achieve the goals described. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, and I would definitely follow up with the Minister for a further conversation with her other hat on as well, with ITI.
And, again, I really do want to be respectful of the conversation around liquor and the damage it has done in the Northwest Territories. However, in Yellowknife, and what I hear from some residents, is the frustration at the liquor store not being opened on Sundays. And it strikes me as quite odd in how we decide to treat cannabis versus liquor where cannabis can be sold on a Sunday and liquor cannot. And I know this is a very complex conversation in the territory but when I do look at Yellowknife, I don't see necessarily why we're not selling alcohol on Sundays. And so is that something that the government or the department is looking to perhaps change in the future, even if it is communityspecific and communitydriven, which ones do it. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So there is of course, there has been a review of the Liquor Act in the length of this Assembly, and I would say credit to the standing committee for encouraging that to move forward. There and that would be one of the items that can be considered through that process, and it's obviously then a process that includes public consultation. I think the Member sort of stated it much the way I've been receiving information, which is that there's what might be workable and appropriate for a large centre such as Yellowknife may not necessarily be reflective of what's wanted by a small community. And part of what would be nice to see in amended liquor legislation is actually to be able to empower individual communities to better reflect what they want without too many hoops, including the desires of the community in Yellowknife which may be different. So not to go too far on the what's coming or what may not be coming in the legislation in amended legislation, only to say that that is exactly the kind of balance that needs to be struck therein. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And, yeah, I appreciate that's in the little bit that I've seen of that, again not the committee I see on. But I appreciate that is what is being considered. And, again, I think it shows the understanding of the department that it's not going to be a one answer or a one size fits all across the territory.
And then I guess I'll just ask lastly, because I think that usually MLA Johnson asks and he's not going to today, is there a way or some others have asked, to actually funnel this money directly into our rehab addiction services, etcetera. And I'm pretty sure I already know what the answer's going to be, but I'll ask again. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I've been asked a lot of questions lately about revolving funds, and I haven't received a lot of positive response to them from the department, from their experts, and there's a number of reasons for that. One of them is if you start to put money into the revolving fund, well for one, if it sits in a revolving fund, it doesn't actually get appropriated and approved in the House. So in terms of being able to maintain control over what the spending actually is by the government, the minute it goes off into a revolving fund it doesn't get approved here. And I would be, you know, remiss as the department Minister of Finance for the government to say we shouldn't be appropriating our money here at this Chamber in this process.
Another challenge is that if you put the money in the revolving fund and it's a certain amount but it's not enough, again it's more difficult to necessarily draw from other sources as opposed to the consolidated revenue fund, which is the ultimate bank account of the Government of the Northwest Territories, which is where all the money comes from. So if there's a program or service that starts to be in greater need or become a greater priority as we have seen priorities evolve over the life of the Assembly, it's easy to adjust, again, in the course of where we spend and how we spend if it's part of that overall budgeting process.
And the last comment on this, more specific to the question, Madam Chair, is the addictions side of this issue really is a health and social services area of expertise. The departments did work together because we had, of course, the Liquor Act work going on and the development of the alcohol and addictions strategy happening. So the two leads on that were meeting regularly and I understand were trying to make their work at least not be contradictory one to the other. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Great Slave.
Thank you. Then my question is why is it revolving fund to begin with? I really struggle sometimes with understanding the accounting mechanisms that have been set up, the third arm, health's you know, the third arm's length health authorities, the housing corp, or NWT Housing not being a department. Like, why did we decide to do it this way; what makes this worthwhile if we can't then control it? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. That I guess I set myself up for that one. Madam Chair, so, I mean, we have the liquor and cannabis commission, which is the entity responsible for actually doing the sales of the liquor and now cannabis. So the revolving fund really does fund those operations and as soon as they have an excess, they don't make a profit; that money goes back to the consolidated revenue of the Government of the Northwest Territories. But by keeping it separate, they do they can run their own operation, and yes, separate unto themselves which I would say is not necessarily an area that I'm keen to see myself have to get too involved into the actual buying and selling of the liquor. Thank you.
Thank you. Anything final, Member for Great Slave?
Seeing as the Minister left me, like, 15 seconds, I really do want to ask a question; however just I won't. That could be her reward. So thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks.
All right. Are there any further questions under the information items? Seeing none, thank you, Members, please return now to the departmental summary found on page 149. Revenue summary, information items on page 150. Are there any questions? No further questions, I will now call the department summary.
Finance, operations expenditures, total department, 20232024 Main Estimates, $337,534,000. Member for Frame Lake.
