Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 3, 1993-94 requests additional appropriation authority of $9.893 million. If approved by the Legislative Assembly, this appropriation will bring our 1993-94 deficit position to around $23 million, Mr. Chairman. That is shown in the 1993-94 revised forecast column of the revenue and expenditure summary in the 1994/95 main estimates.

Mr. Chairman, this supplementary appropriation includes a further $2.799 million for projected deficiencies in the social assistance program. This is in addition to the $2.4 million already approved in Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 2, last November. There is also provision in this supplementary appropriation for an additional $2.233 million for the Department of Justice. Mr. Chairman, this includes $1 million for corrections and $623,000 for legal aid. Funding is also included for courts and coroner services.

Mr. Chairman, on the capital side, the Department of Transportation received a special warrant of $1 million in January to acquire and complete the unfinished Igloolik air terminal building.

Mr. Chairman, as we proceed to review Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 3, in detail, you will note that there are one-time expenditures and there are others which are due to forced growth which are liable to continue after this year. Where this is the case, Mr. Chairman, we will rely on our supplementary reserves in 1994-95. Mr. Chairman, this will require a very stringent approach to the consideration of supplementary requests next year.

Mr. Chairman, I am now prepared to review the details of the supplementary funding requests and either answer Members' questions or refer them to the Minister responsible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Finance reviewed Bill 13, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 3, 1993-94. At its meeting in Yellowknife on February 9, 12, and March 2, 1994, the committee was pleased that the chairman of the Financial Management Board and his staff were available to answer questions at the required time. This supplementary appropriation is for $8.388 million in operation and maintenance and $1.505 million in capital spending, for a total of $9.893 million or about one per cent of the total 1993-94 budget.

Most of the items are quite straightforward. However, some of the items raised issues which concerned the standing committee and which may be raised by standing committee Members here in committee of the whole. These issues include poor forecasting by some departments, the issuing of special warrants to cover expenses previously incurred, responsibility for costs related to land claims and poor monitoring of negotiated contracts.

On the other hand, the standing committee is glad to see the implementation of the community policing pilot project. We feel that such programs will be of great benefit in providing northerners with an effective system of community-based justice.

The standing committee also supports and encourages the proposal for divisional boards of education to be directly responsible for the management of utilities and expenditures. This will be an important step in encouraging boards and all government agencies to use energy wisely. The standing committee is encouraged that this request for supplementary funding is, comparatively speaking, as small as it is. This may suggest that the government is improving its planning and budgeting process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I might, Mr. Chairman, and then I would request permission to move to the witness table. Thank you.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman that I have with me is Mr. Lew Voytilla, who is the secretary to the Financial Management Board. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause by clause.

Clause By Clause

Department Of Executive

I am curious about the program to look at travel. There was a travel agent, office or monitor which was supposed to be set up. This says a transfer of administration was delayed. How long was the delay and why?

Mr. Chairman, on page six, regarding the $500,000, we had intended to transfer the responsibility for employee medical travel from, as it was then, Personnel, now the Financial Management Board Secretariat, to the Department of Health. The Department of Health was unable to accept that transfer in this fiscal year because of work that they were doing in decentralization to Inuvik and Rankin Inlet. In this fiscal year it won't be transferred. It will be transferred in the next fiscal year, beginning April 1 of this year, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

What I am hearing is because the Department of Health couldn't implement a recommendation made, it is costing this government $500,000.

No, Mr. Chairman. We transferred the administration to the Department of Health in this fiscal year by recommendation. They were unable to accept the transfer and handle the issue in this particular fiscal year. We anticipated that we would get a net savings of $400,000 out of this particular transfer because the Department of Health is already handling medical travel for other people in the Northwest Territories aside from employees. We were unable to make the transfer this year, so we were unable to get that savings. We are replacing the money. Thank you.

This is for clarification again. A decision that was made by Cabinet, which was to save us money, is now costing us $400,000. Is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, we anticipated that there would be a savings of $400,000 making this move across to the Department of Health. We removed $400,000 from Personnel's budget in anticipation of the savings we would get by moving it to Health. The move did not take place and now we're replacing the money we had originally taken out of their budget. So, it is not costing us over and above what has been happening historically. In anticipation of savings, we reduced their budget and we're merely replacing it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So what do we consider that? Opportunity costs lost or is it just another cost of decentralizing?

Mr. Chairman, we believe the savings are still there, we just won't get them in this fiscal year. We will try to get them in the next fiscal year but we still think the efficiency is there in moving this responsibility over. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So what savings are anticipated in this fiscal year and upcoming years?

Mr. Chairman, we're back at status quo this year so there won't be any savings in the fiscal year we're dealing with, but we do anticipate that we will be able to achieve these efficiencies in future years. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister is saying that the government forecasted a $400,000 savings by decentralizing two regional centres. Was there a negative supp for $400,000 out of the Personnel department?

Mr. Chairman, if I indicated to the committee that it was a savings through decentralization, then I'm in error. This was a transfer of the administration of medical travel for our employees that was going to occur between Personnel and Health. The reason that Health was not able to handle the transfer this year is because they were busy with the decentralization to Rankin and Inuvik. We did not see a supp in this House for this amount of money because it was taken directly out of the budget at the OPPLAN.

That's where the reduction occurred, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Agreed.

---Agreed

Department Of Personnel

Agreed.

---Agreed

Mr. Dent had his hand up first.

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of this project we really didn't know what it was going to cost. We didn't know what the appraisals were going to cost and we weren't able to forecast it. The other issue was we were hoping that we would be able to fund this from within. It turns out that we weren't able to do that and we issued a special warrant on January 11. We had hoped that we would be able to fund this from within. Thank you.

I understand the question and I can understand the concern, Mr. Chairman. As soon as we became aware that we were not going to be able to fund this from within, FMB was asked to take the appropriate action which was by then getting to be fairly urgent and we did it by way of special warrant. It might seem as if we might have bent the rules a little bit, but we believe we acted in good faith, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you. Am I to understand that on January 11, a decision was made to set up a task force of 2.5 PYs to implement the housing strategy? Is that when the decision was made?

Mr. Chairman, the staff were there already. It was just that on January 11, we recognized the 2.5 PYs, funded them $169,000 in salary and wages and $203,000 in O and M, for a total of $372,000 because the departments weren't able to handle it from within their appropriations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When was the special team set up to implement the strategy?

They were there most of the fiscal year. I think it was June that they started looking at the disposition of the houses, what it would take for appraisals, how many houses had to be looked at and what the process would have to be, Mr. Chairman. So they were there for the best part of the fiscal year.

It strikes me as odd that we set up a process or a strategy where we're supposed to save money and it's a case where it is costing us more money. I'm just wondering out loud how this has happened. The strategy has been around now for a couple of years, I believe, and it went to

implementation. It is only now, as Mr. Dent mentioned, that we are starting to recognize the actual costs. How much more is it going to cost us in the long run?

Mr. Chairman, this program will generate for us in excess of $14 million this year. We're hoping for $17.4 million in this fiscal year and another $9.45 million is 1994-95. That doesn't include the $1.5 million that we are going to save from DPW because we're no longer maintaining those units. I realize that $372,000 is a lot of money, but I think the return to us by disposing of assets, getting people into their own homes and getting us some cost-savings in other areas of the government is probably worth it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

So most of the numbers that you mentioned are one-time savings from the sale of the units, or one-time revenue generating projects, which is again the sale of the units. That's where you get the hard cash. They are nice numbers, but the ongoing savings...I'm just wondering what the impact is. Again, we can come up with the numbers that you have and you stated, but there's another cost that doesn't seem to be taken into consideration. This is the cost on the staff, the morale, the mental costs. Some of the other costs that nobody has seemed to come up with yet is what's the impact on the staff in the communities? How many are going to be left after this whole strategy is in place? There are a lot of morale problems, a lot of unrest. In the communities where houses are going up for sale, a lot of staff don't know whether to buy or not because they don't know if they're going to have a job. This is causing a lot of concern. I'm just thinking out loud as to what the overall cost and impact is going to be on services to our residents.

Mr. Chairman, it's certainly not our intention to cause staff problems. They are a valuable resources of the Government of the Northwest Territories. I don't think we've said, in anything that I know about, that we are going to reduce the number of staff. We're certainly not trying to force people to buy these units. We are offering to those people who are interested in purchasing a unit, but we're certainly not forcing them. At least I'm not aware of any situation where we're making it stressful for them if they don't buy, or saying to them they'll lose their jobs or anything like that. If there is unrest about losing jobs and so on, I'd like to hear more about it because we certainly don't want to send that message to our employees. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Agreed.

---Agreed

Agreed.

---Agreed

Agreed.

---Agreed

Department Of Justice

Agreed.

---Agreed

Who authorizes a coroner's inquest on fatalities?

Mr. Chairman, there are coroners across the Northwest Territories and they are administered to by the chief coroner. Coroners may order inquests themselves. They may do it in consultation with people in the community. They may do it in consultation with people in the community and the chief coroner, or the chief coroner may suggest this is an area where this should be dealt with by way of inquest. There are a number of things that can happen there, Mr. Chairman. It is generally the local coroner who makes that kind of decision. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So has the number of fatalities increased over the years to warrant an increase in the budget, or it is because we have more coroners out there that's causing the increase in the budget?

Mr. Chairman, over the years, in 1990 there were 108 coroners' cases: in 1991, there were 110 coroners' cases; in 1992, 147 coroners' cases; and, in 1993, 131 coroners' cases. Respectively, in those four years, the number of autopsies went from 12, 29, 54 and then back down to 46. Mr. Chairman, it's not the coroner's call on whether it's

a coroner's case if that's clearly laid down in law and when people such as the RCMP or people in a hospital, under certain conditions, have knowledge of a fatality that comes under the Coroner's Act then they have to notify a coroner. It's not something that can be driven by a coroner, as you well know, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Agreed.

---Agreed

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Being on the Standing Committee on Finance, I was able to receive the report from the executive director of the Northwest Territories Legal Aid, through the Minister of Justice, about the steps the board is taking to implement the recommendations of Strength at Two Levels, the Legal Services Board's task force on legal aid, the Department of Justice's legal aid action plan and The Justice House report on gender equality. I think that good progress is being made by this new executive director and the board. So I am quite satisfied with the progress.

There is just one comment I would like to make before we approve this. That is, in my opinion, it should be a priority that the Department of Justice consult with the Law Society and prepare a new legal aid tariff which would specify what is known as "A" priority limitations, in contrast to the present after the fact taxation system of billing. I think this would simplify the review of accounts. I think there is nothing wrong with establishing ceilings in advance on certain kinds of work, and I think that that would also result in cost-savings. I would just like to put those comments on the record, Mr. Chairman. I know that work is being considered. In my view, it should be given a priority. Thank you.

Agreed.

---Agreed

It is not $323,000.

Thank you. Justice, operations and maintenance, legal aid, not previously authorized, $623,000.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Registries and court services, not previously authorized, $250,000. Agreed?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Mr. Koe.

Thank you. I am curious about the court services for the Giant Mine offences. I thought that many of these costs were to be recovered from the federal government. Was any of this $250,000 being recovered, or requested to be recovered, from the federal government or is it a loss to this government?

Thank you. Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that we can recover these costs. The costs include casual staff for court security of $30,000; security equipment; court security, $6,000; facility rentals, because the other space is not large enough, $14,000, travel for witnesses and jurors, $120,000; juror fees, which is a legal requirement, $50,000; and, witness' fees, legal requirement again, $30,000. Unless the Minister of Justice has more information, I don't believe we can recover these funds from the federal government, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you. Registries and court services. Mr. Koe.

This raises a point. The reason for holding court is because of the Giant Mine strike, which is a labour dispute which is supposedly a federal jurisdiction. We have no responsibility or could not intervene in that, yet here we are stuck with a cost of now trying to put Justice to work in terms of holding court and paying the costs. Something is not balancing here. That is why I raised the question.

Thank you. Minister Pollard.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Koe is correct. The federal government is responsible for the labour laws in the Northwest Territories. The strike was obviously their jurisdiction, but when a crime is committed in our jurisdiction and it is able to be brought before our court or the Supreme Court, we become responsible for the costs of that court regardless of why the crime was committed, what was happening around that particular time for that crime to be committed or what it was connected to. We bear those court costs because the infractions that are alleged took place in our jurisdiction. Consequently, it has to be dealt with separately from any other labour-related matter that the federal government may be involved in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Koe.

How much is related to this issue? How much has been recovered from the federal government for the whole Giant Mine strike? There is a huge cost incurred for the police strike force. Have we recovered any monies from the federal government that were incurred by this government?

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the amount that is in dispute at the present time is around $2 million. We maintain that it is the federal government's responsibility. They maintain that it is our responsibility. We are still hassling back and forth with them on that issue. It is around $2 million, Mr. Chairman.