Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, Mr. Chair, I mean, I'm not going to ask the public service necessarily to run theoretical scenarios on things that may or may not happen in a space where they have previously done and been able to, you know, respond fairly quickly, that there's a lot of understanding within the department and our fiscal policy division of what the current circumstances are, what the current options are. They've had multiple conversations with the Department of Finance over the last couple of years every time there's been changes from the federal side. We have the option to zero out our values if it gets to a point where we are able to do that, and I would expect, again, as I've said before that that seems to be the tenor from this room that everyone would want that to be done, and we'd certainly keep folks apprised if it gets to that point. But as far as trying to figure out or read tea leaves of what -- who would get elected and whether they would actually do the snippets that are sometimes being put out as part of campaigns, which are not necessarily a full policy development, Mr. Chair, no, I'm not asking the public service to necessarily spend time trying to guess what that might look like. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think that something that keeps getting lost in this conversation is it doesn't need an election to make this change, just so you know. It's something that could happen on the fly, so hence, being prepared for whatever may come is really what I'm getting at.
So before I push off of this, I may return to this point of carbon tax, but my area of question next was going to be the heritage fund. And we can actually see the actuals for 2023-2024, just 3-point -- well, we'll call it $3.1 million. I'm just using round numbers for sake -- but it's prescribed as 6.1 in the fiscal year that we're working through and the continuation of the same number moving forward. How real are these actual numbers, or are they just placeholders, and if -- thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the budgeted line item of $6.1 million there has been that same value for -- well, some time anyways, but it is an estimate, and it is ultimately a projection, and it does depend a fair bit on what the state of the resource sector is doing and how healthy it is, and there can be quite a bit of fluctuation. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Given that I put, you know, say, great faith in the quality of work that probably goes into the budget, and I can't even begin to imagine how much skill and expertise it requires, other than the fact that I, you know, tip my hat to say I believe some very smart and hardworking people bring this together from top to bottom, page to page -- or cover to cover. But what worries me here is it's an estimate knowing that we're -- you know, is that really achievable especially when we're so close to the debt wall at $3.2 million. Does estimates like this that have a lot of variability not have an impact at the end of the day on the overall budget and the financial wherewithal of the GNWT? So in other words, if you overstated your number to look -- make our balance sheet look better but is that really the case here? Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, so no, we're not overstating the budget to make it all look better. It doesn't have that kind of effect on it, Mr. Chair. And perhaps given that this is getting into the process of how it is actually budgeted, I might start with the deputy minister but we might turn to director of shared corporate services too. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the deputy minister.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know if there's too much to add. So the $6.1 million has been in place for some time. That was an estimate of what the royalties -- what would be going based on 25 percent royalties to the heritage fund over the course of the fiscal year so we kept that budgeted amount over the last few years, and then in the last few years, as the Member pointed out, the actual amount of revenues going in the heritage fund have been less, so that's what the situation is. Thank you.
Thank you. Do you want me to go to the director?
No, thank you.
Okay, thank you. All right, I'm going to go back to the Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, by the way, I do recognize that a budget revenue is much different -- they're a different creature than the borrowing limit or the debt wall. But the thing is I'm looking at it from a bigger picture of the financial wherewithal so I'm just -- why do we keep saying $6.1 million when we know that's the placeholder number but, you know, when we're so tight on the budget on every aspect of it, it just seems -- wouldn't it seem more prudent to budget it at 3.1 as an example, being more realistic? Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, it actually might be interesting to look back on what the actuals in this area have been over a longer period of time. So the last couple of years, in particular, have been difficult for the mineral resource industry and things have been coming in low, but the value of $6.1 million here is one that, again, do we want to look at this $3 million? You know, we can certainly -- can certainly take it back. But, again, I'd want to look back at a longer stretch of time to have a better sense of just how much variability there is between the actuals and mains, and then also we'd want to probably go over to my friends at ITI and see if they can have a better sense of what the future might bring in this space and whether or not we are going to achieve that $6.1 million. So I'll leave it there at the time, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go back to the Member from Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want to prescribe the whole industry of either lawyers or accountants, but we all know they're cautious and pessimistic by trade so being optimistic on estimating financials seems to be so counterintuitive to the nature of lawyers and accountants, and I would just find it concerning because if they're not in touch with the issues of what's happening today, in other words, we're not -- you know, diamonds are down, gas is not coming out of the ground, oil's tapping out, people are not working, cost of living is going up, I mean, I just don't know how people would see these as realistic numbers and that's really the issue I'm trying to draw. I mean, we're not going to get anywhere kind of trying to pierrot back and forth saying, wow, we picked the numbers. But basing these on longer term trends, while I think the down trend has been it before years the only jurisdiction that is not showing economic promise is us in comparison to our two sister territories. So I'm just not sure -- back to the point of saying accountants and lawyers are very conservative. My apologies. Lawyers and accountants are very conservative, I was trying to say, in their budgeting estimates and predictions, and I just find it strange it seems overly optimistic, that's all. Thank you
Thank you. I take that as a comment, or was there a question to the Minister?
Okay, we'll just take that as a comment, then. Thank you for that. Next on my list I have is the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since we are under the MBS category, I was curious to ask the Minister how MBS is going to support and action a macro economic policy and if there's any anticipated costs or if this is a role mainly for departments to take on. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I probably will turn that one to the deputy minister for some detail. There wouldn't be added cost, at least not anticipated at this time, Mr. Chair. It is -- you know, has been drafted, I believe has or will be going to committee for their consideration and -- before being implemented. It's a tool that's used to help bring a lens of understanding on some of the submissions that come through as decision papers to see whether or what impacts from a macro economic lens things are having. But if I could, Mr. Chair, just on detail of sort of the next steps, I'll turn to the deputy minister.
Thank you. I'll go to the deputy minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as the Minister mentioned, the macro economic policy is -- framework policy is intended to give FMB the tools that it needs and the information that it needs to determine what the macro economic implications are, the decisions it makes. So the way MBS supports, and the Department of Finance supports, departments in doing that is that our fiscal policy division provides input into -- it's a series of questions that departments have to answer or fill out this questionnaire that will go into the MBS -- or, first of all, the department's submission, and then ultimately the MBS assessment of the FMB decision papers.
And then as far as where we are at in terms of implementing, we're revising the macro economic framework policy because it exists already but we're just updating it, and it's been sent to AOC on November 28th, so we're engaging with committee on it, and we'll have the revised macro economic policy in place sometime early this year, so sometime in the next few weeks. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go back to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So that's -- I can understand that. I can understand it's a lens that you put in decision papers, so thank you for that.
So historically, this division has supported the government renewal initiative. I know that they continue to, I believe, renew -- review these initiatives that come in from departments. I understand, too, that there's movement to eventually put that work back on departments and put that in their wheelhouse. But will GRI be used to support any ongoing fiscal sustainability objectives of the GNWT? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'll go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, yes, absolutely. Part -- a big part of the GRI work, and particularly with respect to the movement to have departments involved in doing and completing their first, second, and third rounds of evaluations under the GRI framework, is to create a culture whereby we are in a continuous evaluation, we are able to undertake and know that we are undertaking reviews of our programs. That was not necessarily a very structured, organized, or enforced process prior to GRI. So by doing so, we are better placed going forward on programs, particularly -- well, I was going to say particularly new ones but there's quite a selection right now. So it really is an opportunity to bring that about so that there's a continuous culture that we are able to say is something working, is it getting value, and then all of us here have that information available to us to decide whether we want to continue to fund something or if you want to shift funding to something that's being particularly successful or shift funding away from something that's not succeeding as we all hope it to be. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And so I guess to get a little granular -- and I apologize if this is -- this is just sort of spitballing, but is there a contemplation, then, that programs that undergo evaluation will be noted in future submissions to FMB? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. Chair, we do get regular updates with respect to progress on GRI which at this point was involving the different -- different programs chosen by each department. We are providing training and supports through MBS over in fiscal -- our fiscal division over to departments to do that evaluation work in an ongoing way. And, yes, then that information goes through reviews is supposed to come back, each program evaluation comes back to the financial management board, Cabinet, and certainly happy to ensure that that's getting shared regularly. I believe it is getting shared regularly with committee but we can -- again, happy to make that commitment so that if or when it comes to this floor in terms of if there's program changes or if there's financing changes, we all have that information about what appears to be working versus not. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Member from Great Slave.
Thanks, that's good to hear. And I guess I'll be a little more explicit. Is there a contemplation that the success of a program would be flagged specifically with an FMB submission such that the success or possibly areas for improvement would be a factor in the decision-making? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to say yes, but I just want to be clear that I -- to my understanding, there's not -- you know, in the decision papers, templates, which are in the financial administration manual, and actually are online, there wouldn't necessarily be a line item right now that says GRI compliant or GRI -- you know, has proceeded through GRI. I'm certainly happy to consider looking at that. So again, if there's benefit, that's a decision for more than just me sitting here right now. But if that's something that departments find helpful, if the analysts find helpful, yes, again, I'm a big fan of GRI -- I know the Member is as well -- so happy to look at ways to better include that culture evaluation in what we do. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Great Slave.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I cede the rest of my time.
Okay, thank you. Next on my list I got is the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. I certainly was going to ask questions very similar to the Member for Great Slave on GRI. Maybe if I can try and build upon that.
I mean, I think that the concern that I have about -- well, first of all, I mean, I think GRI is a great initiative. I very much support it. And my real concern with it is simply that we're not reviewing programs quickly enough, that it's been taken -- you know, it's kind of extended into multiple terms of the Assembly. And I think, you know, I've spoken to the fact in my reply to the budget address that our inability to say, you know, what the performance of any given program is and determine, you know, what's working, what isn't, what we need to adjust, is a big problem when it comes to budgeting.
So I guess what I would ask is, I mean, have we considered -- well, I'll ask kind of one at a time. Have we considered simply bringing in outside help to help us kind of move the GRI initiative forward in a faster manner given its importance to help us with reviewing all our different programs?
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So to date at this point, this is being done internally. It was meant to be an exercise that didn't take on or didn't add costs to departments or include to the Department of Finance. So at this point, it's been largely cost neutral or -- and certainly to get, as I said, not new money. Again, there's -- I think outside of finance -- I may be wrong -- I think only ECE has their own actual formal evaluators. So to do this in a bigger sense would likely require some additional funding. Again, could potentially get some estimates for the committee if they want to consider what that looks like. But, again, given the priorities of the Assembly right now, Mr. Chair, we're trying to keep this as an in-House financial. Thank you.
Thank you. I'll go to the Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I get the point, and I understand what the Minister is saying here, but I guess, you know, there's lot of initiatives that we spent a lot of money on year after year. This is one that could help us eventually figure out what programs we need to change or potentially even let go of. I think -- you know, I think this is kind of a -- one of those scenarios where we might need to spend a little bit of money to save some more. And, yeah, it's something that I'd like to -- I'd like to kind of run up the flagpole as an important initiative and I think something that could be useful for the difficult conversations that we've been having with, you know, our inability to fully implement the Restoring Balance policy as of yet. So I'll leave it at that.
Mr. Chair, I just want to ask -- I mean, I see that the heritage fund is included as an information item on page 181. I have some specific questions about that. Should I save those for that page or ask them here?
Thank you. Now that you have the floor, we can also continue with that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to ask a little bit about the heritage fund. In particular, I note that, you know, the Heritage Fund Act does require annual reporting, and we had a compelling presentation from a former Member of the Assembly yesterday on the heritage fund at SCOGO, and they were noting that we do not actually write or post annual reports as required. I'm just wondering why that hasn't been done.
Thank you. I'm going to go to the Minister.
With respect to -- I did not have the opportunity to attend this briefing, Mr. Chair, so I don't know what may or may not have been said. But as far as reporting, Mr. Chair, maybe I'll turn that to the deputy minister to see if he can give that background, please.
