Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 3, 2007-2008, requests authority for additional appropriations of $21.305 million for appropriation expenditures and $7.951 million for capital investment expenditures in the 2007-2008 fiscal year.

To clarify the contents of the bill, of the $21.305 million in operations expenditure appropriations requested in the supplementary appropriation, approximately $1.9 million is offset by federal revenues. That includes $1.4 million for municipal rural infrastructure funding.

Of the $7.951 million in capital investment expenditures requested in the supplementary appropriation, $4.5 million is offset by revenues, $1.7 million is in municipal rural infrastructure funding from the federal government and $2.7 million is from Canada Infoway Inc. as part of the Canadian Electronic Health Record System project.

Major items included in this request for the operations expenditures are as follows: $5.3 million associated with hospital and physician services to N.W.T. residents receiving services outside of the N.W.T.; $2 million across departments to fund increased utility costs related to government operations; $1.6 million for increased expenditures for supplementary health benefits, including extended health benefits, indigenous health benefits and Metis health benefits; $1.6 million for additional costs incurred for dental premiums and medical travel assistance payments on behalf of G.N.W.T. employees; and $1.2 million for additional costs related to the Territory Power Subsidy Program.

Also of note on the operations side is a net increase of $2.8 million for the environmental liability associated with government infrastructure as a result of 11 newly identified sites as well as a re-evaluation of some previously identified sites.

That concludes my opening remarks. We’ll be prepared to answer questions Members may have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. At this time I’d like to ask the Minister if he’ll be introducing any witnesses.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Does the committee agree that the Minister brings in his witnesses?

For the record, would you please introduce your witness, Mr. Premier.

Mr. Chairman, joining me at the table is Ms. Kathleen LeClair, the secretary to the FMB.

Welcome, Ms. LeClair.

At this time I’d like to ask the Members if they have any general comments in regard to the supplementary appropriation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make a couple of general comments on the Minister’s opening remarks.

Since I’ve been here I’ve seen a few of these sups come forward. I’m just a little concerned that when they do their actual budgeting exercise, it seems that they come back for some extra funding that wasn’t asked for before. I’m just hoping that this is not an indication of not budgeting properly or waiting for a lot of the actual costs to come in before they realize they’ve budgeted wrong. I’ve seen it happen in a few other cases, where numbers are being budgeted, and when it comes down to the actual, we seem to be…. The estimates seem to come in a lot less than what it’s actually costing us. I just hope this is not a trend.

I understand there’s some stuff that we just can’t get away from. There are emergencies and a few other things that weren’t foreseen when they were doing the actual budgeting exercise. I just wanted to make a few comments to that effect, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the area of the supplementary appropriations is something that is, as well, shared, in the sense of the concern the Member has raised.

As this government starts its work, this is the first supplementary appropriation for the 16th Legislative

Assembly. The process we’re moving forward with is that the supplementary appropriation would be used for emergencies, unforeseen events that departments were not able to plan for.

As we begin our business planning process, we’re working with departments to ensure that they build into their business plans the appropriate dollars for running initiatives that have been identified. We’re looking to reduce the use of supplementary appropriations in the future.

Mr. Chairman, a couple of things pop out for me. The first one is the $2 million across departments to fund increased utility costs. Not unrelated, the second one is $1.2 million for additional funds going towards the territorial power subsidy program.

I think we have big opportunities for energy savings and doing things in a better way that’s both cheaper and beneficial to our environment. I, of course, have been bringing some of those ways forward, and I know the Premier and his cabinet are aware of those. But I think it highlights, as well, some of the infrastructure, like the mini-hydro run-of-the-river projects that are small-scale, appropriate to the small communities and most beneficial to them.

A little bit of upfront pain can give really long-term gain financially as well as in these other areas of social and environmental benefits. So I’m hoping to see those sorts of things in the future. I realize this is just a supplementary budget, but these things do pop up.

Mr. Chairman, the area the Member has identified is of growing concern, I guess, is a fair way to put it. We’ve had to identify additional costs throughout the year. Some of that is because, as we have told departments, they need to eat some of those costs and encourage energy efficiency. As well, as Members are aware, the fluctuating price of oil across the country and the nation also has a direct impact on ourselves and the departments. So we’ve had to make these types of adjustments.

The Territorial Power Support Program, as the Member has touched on, is a concern to us as well, as we continue to top up that budget item as we’re forced to deal with the increased costs of utilities across the Territory.

Mr. Chairman, I just have a couple of comments. This is a new process for me. This is the first sup appropriation that I have seen, and I want to echo the comments of my colleague Mr. McLeod, in that it seems to me that many of these expenditures in this supplementary appropriation should have been foreseen, particularly the utility costs. I don’t think it was a surprise to anybody. A year ago I think we should have been able to know that our utility costs were going to increase, and they should have been budgeted for.

There are a couple of other things in here, as well. From what I see in this appropriation, it’s expenses which are necessary, but I again reiterate that they should have been foreseen. I would hope and I’m glad to hear the Premier say that in going forward, our budgets will hopefully be a little more accurate, that we will have fewer supplementary appropriations and that, if I heard him right, they will be for emergent items as opposed to ongoing O&M. I’m glad to hear that.

My belief is that we should budget the way we would in our personal lives for our own household expenses: you set a budget and you spend the money to the budget limit. And when that’s gone, you don’t spend any more.

Mr. Chairman, as I’d stated earlier along the lines of this area of the use of supplementary appropriations, it will be something that, as the 16th Assembly, we will have to work

with, to work around reducing the use of these items. It would be, as well, Members who would help in that in the sense of policing the use of that by continuing to send the message back through Ministers and departments about proper planning. The fact is that, in our current fiscal situation we have to come to the realization that there’s only so often you can go back to the well before the bucket comes back dry.

We have a lot of new Members here. I’d just like to remind the Members that you do have ten minutes to ask questions and make a general comment, and also within your ten minutes you can ask more than one question. You’re not limited to one question. You have ten minutes. I just wanted to throw that out there.

General comments? If there are no more general comments, would the committee like to proceed?

We’re now on tab 2. I believe we’re starting on page 5: Legislative Assembly, Office of the Clerk, not previously authorized: negative $47,000. Does the committee agree?

Legislative Assembly, Operations

Expenditures, Office of the Clerk, $47,000 approved.

Legislative Assembly, not previously authorized: negative $47,000. Agreed?

Total Legislative Assembly, $47,000 approved.

Page 6, Executive Offices, Executive Operations Expense, not previously authorized: $981,000. Agreed?

Executive Offices, Executive Operations

Expense, $981,000 approved.

Total Executive Offices, not previously authorized: $981,000. Is the committee agreed?

Total Executive Offices, $981,000 approved.

This binder should be on your desk. We are on tab 2, page 5. We’ve dealt with Legislative Assembly, Operations Expenditures. We just went through the Executive Operation Expense. We’re on page 6. Are you ready to continue on?

We’re on page 7. Human Resources, Executive continued, Operations Expense, Directorate, not previously authorized: negative $185,000. Agreed?

Human Resources, Executive continued,

Operations Expenditures, Directorate, $185,000 approved.

Human Resources Strategy and Policy, not previously authorized: $187,000. Agreed?

Human Resources Strategy and Policy,

$187,000 approved.

Employee Services, not previously authorized: $1,579,000. Are we agreed?

Employee Services, $1,579,000 approved.

Total Human Resources, not previously authorized: $1,581,000. Are we agreed?

Total Human Resources, $1,581,000

approved.

We’re now on page 8, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, not previously authorized: negative $28,000. Agreed?

Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental

Relations, $28,000 approved.

Total Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, not previously authorized: negative $28,000. Agreed?

Total Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental

Relations, $28,000 approved.

Financial Management Board Secretariat, Directorate, not previously authorized: negative $119,000. Is the committee agreed?

Financial Management Board Secretariat,

Directorate, $119,000 approved.

Government Accounting, not previously authorized: $3,962,000. Agreed?

Government Accounting, $3,962,000

approved.

Total Financial Management Board Secretariat, not previously authorized: $3,843,000. Agreed?

Total Financial Management Board Secretariat,

$3,843,000 approved.

Total Department, not previously authorized: $6,377,000. Agreed?

Total Department, $6,377,000 approved.

Page 10, Finance, Operations Expenditures, Directorate, not previously authorized: negative $32,000. Agreed?

Finance, Operations Expenditures, Directorate,

$32,000 approved.

Total Finance, not previously authorized, negative $32,000. Agreed?

Total Finance, $32,000 approved.

Page 11, Municipal and Community Affairs, Operations Expenditures, Directorate, not previously authorized: negative $72,000. Agreed?

Municipal and Community Affairs, Operations

Expenditures, Directorate, $72,000 approved.

Community Operations, not previously authorized: $1,441,000. Agreed?

Community Operations, $1,441,000 approved.

Lands Administration, not previously authorized: $30,000. Agreed?

Lands Administration, $30,000 approved.

Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Chair, we’re on page 11, yes? Thank you. Just to make it firm. I couldn’t hear you.

I have a concern to the Premier, or I should say the Finance Minister, on the way we fund projects. In this particular case we have a transfer of infrastructure contribution funding to capital investment expenditures.

What it is, is the money that goes to the Nahanni Butte gym. Before we get too far, I want to firmly state that I’m in support of their project. It’s the process that we go about this in transferring O&M to capital dollars and then transferring it over.

Mr. Hawkins, I don't believe we've gotten to that item yet. It’s under Regional Operations. We're still dealing with Land Administration. It’s further down the list, under Regional Operations, if you can hold your question until we get to that line item.

Sports, Recreation and Youth, not previously authorized: $425,000. Agreed?

Sports, Recreation and Youth, $425,000

approved.

Regional Operations, not previously authorized: negative $575,000. Mr. Hawkins?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't get fresh time on the clock, it appears.

First, as I said earlier, I just want reaffirm that I’m in support of the project. I'm just not supportive of the process of how we do this.

We're supporting a project by putting money into an O&M fund, and then we're allowing it to be transferred over to capital. And it just sounds like a funky or a wonky way of doing the process. We should be up front.

O&M should not be funding capital projects. The spirit and the intent of this all along is to ensure that the community of Nahanni Butte has a gymnasium. Again, I am in support of the project, but the fact is that I don't like the process.

I'd like the Premier to go on record as to why this is the case. Would he be willing to switch it over to what I would consider to be a normal process, where all capital projects flow through a capital process?

Mr. Chairman, the process that’s used has been used for quite a number of years. It is a common process that we use, even when we go into the business planning development stage and to the main estimates that this House would deal with, with projects that fall into the Municipal and Community Affairs area, where the asset that is being constructed becomes property of the community.

This is a result of direction that was given from the Public Sector Accounting Board in 1997 on the way governments deal with their capital assets, and that is when we came into the amortization era of government and how we do business. We’ve implemented those changes through our accounting structures, and it goes back to the area of who owns the asset when it’s completed.

In this case, it only happens with Municipal and Community Affairs because the asset will not be owned by the Government of the Northwest Territories. It will be owned by the community.

Mr. Chairman, the issue of the community owning the asset is not the issue. It is simply how we define projects through a funding process. Regardless of whether the community of Nahanni Butte gets it through the O&M or just a cheque directly from the Finance Minister, I don’t really care, to be honest.

The fact is that we’re funding this project up front before we’re even given a capital project, and on top of that, we’re building a capital project with O&M money. I don’t like the principle of the process that we’re going through. And I wish to put it on the record that I don’t think it’s appropriate that we fund projects before we get them in this way where we just give them all the money and say, “go ahead.”

This is a project for this community. And it wouldn’t change the process if we paid in milestones like we did with any other project. We make the money accessible so it could be drawn down. Again, it wouldn’t change the support of the project, in my view, and it would ensure that we deliver the project, in the fact that we get the asset when they get all their money at the same time. Otherwise, it looks like we’re paying people up front and saying, “good luck — give us a gym.” It makes it difficult for us to bear down pressure if something goes funny.

It’s more of a comment as opposed to a question for the Finance minster, but I’m more than willing to hear his response, assuming he wishes to respond. Like I say, it has nothing to do with being critical as to the project, just the process.

Mr. Chairman, again, the process is one that has been used for a number of budget cycles now. I’ll have to correct that: it’s not only the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs that has done this. The Department of Education, Culture and Employment also has infrastructure contributions, and that would be, for example, the schools and the education authorities here in the capital.

Mr. Chairman, the Finance Minister may be technically right, but in no case should we be funding capital projects, in my view, out of O&M money. It just sounds funny. When you go to read it up in the books to find out where the gymnasium is in a potential budget, you’re going to go to the capital budget.

The last thing I’ll say is that just because we do it this way and we’ve done it this way for a long time doesn’t mean it’s right. And just because we do it this way all the time, every time, we’re never going to get a different answer or a different process.

I think our process would be better, further enhanced and a little more transparent from the public’s point of view and their expectations on how we approve projects if it was done this way. That being said, it’s a loan position. That doesn’t mean it’s not right either.

I guess, for the record, the Member says it is not right. In fact, it is not wrong. This is following the Public Sector Accounting Board and how we deal with our capital and its amortization. This also has changed since we’ve gone to the New Deal with communities, where the capital program has in fact been transferred.

There are a number of smaller communities that are still in settlements that are an exemption to that, and there are a few projects that didn’t get wrapped into the original transfer. We’ll see less of these in the future.

Regional Operations, not previously authorized: negative $575,000. Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Chairman, not to be picky, of course, but in Gametì, there’s a gymnasium and it’s funded through Capital Investment Expenditures, not O&M. Maybe the Finance Minister can explain the difference — why we’ve now agreed it’s not right, it’s not wrong through O&M; now, we’re funding through capital. Can he explain why it’s good for one but not for the other?

Mr. Chairman, this one is the result of being offset by a reduction to the Capital Investment Expenditures. So this is, again, a process of back and forth in how we deal with the construction of that facility.

Again, I wish to reaffirm, not just to the Member who represents the community but anyone else out there who’s listening and who cares. The fact is — and it’s not a criticism of the project — now we have the example where the other applies.

Again, now I’ve bought into the Finance Minister’s important song and dance and passionate plea that this is the way we do things; this is way we’ve done things since 1997; and now we do this project through Capital Investments. So just when I get it clear that if we’re going to build a gym in Gametì that I suspect belongs to the community, now if we go look at the O&M budget, it’s not going to be there.

So I guess I’m searching for some consistent practice — again, transparency on the process — so if anyone wanted to look this up, they would know where to look this up in the budget.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the $250,000 is an addition to the original infrastructure contribution amount, and that is why this one is treated in this manner. It’s not that this is the total amount. This is adding to the original cost of that facility, so we have to add it to this piece. Again, it’s the back and forth of O&M to capital again and dealing with who would own the asset when the work is done.

Mr. Chairman, can the Finance Minister clarify for the record who would own this asset, and maybe explain to me how that would be different in the case of Nahanni Butte, where, as I understand it, they would own the infrastructure?

Mr. Chairman, as I said, this is an additional amount of funding that goes toward the increased costs of this project. So we have to account for it in this manner, as a Vote 1 expenditure, but it’s coming out as a Vote 2, being the capital. It’s a top-up to the original amount to complete that project. But it will be, in Gametì, an

infrastructure project, with the asset to be owned by the community government of Gametì.

I’m sorry to belabour this point, but if anyone takes a look at this, everything he’s said doesn’t apply to the example we talked about before. Whether we’ve topped up the project, it’s my point of view, again, that we’re not following consistent patterns here.

I’ll say it the same way I closed off my last point. It appears to be a lone position, but again, it doesn’t necessarily mean my point is incorrect, in that not everyone on this side of the House is screaming, “clarity, consistency.”

Anyway, I’ll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman. We could be here all day belabouring this. The fact is, I’m just looking for consistency.

Mr. Chairman, the process that I’ve been discussing is the process that is used. At the end of the day, when the asset is owned by a community…. When we establish the program, for example, under capital, and it’s transferred over to communities, we have to transfer it to O&M.

The Gametì school is going to be an asset owned by the Gametì Band Council. The Nahanni Butte community gym is currently identified in the capital until the time the community can legally assume that asset. Then it would have to be transferred over.

Regional Operations, not previously authorized: negative $575,000. Agreed?

Regional Operations, $575,000 approved.

Total Municipal and Community Affairs, not previously authorized: $1,249,000. Agreed?

Total Municipal and Community Affairs,

$1,249,000 approved.

Page 12, Public Works and Services, Operations Expenditures, Directorate, not previously authorized: negative $429,000. Agreed?

Public Works and Services, Operations

Expenditures, Directorate, $429,000 approved.

Asset Management, not previously authorized: $465,000. Agreed?

Asset Management, $465,000 approved.

Total Department, not previously authorized: $36,000. Agreed?

Total Department, $36,000 approved.

Moving on to page 13, Health and Social Services, Operations Expenditures, Program Delivery Support, not previously authorized: negative $86,000. Agreed?

Health and Social Services, Operations

Expenditures, Program Delivery Support, $86,000 approved.

Health Services Programs, not previously authorized: $6,036,000. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m a little dismayed at the amount of this item: the $739,000 for the increase in contributions to the Hay River Health and Social Services Authority pension plan. It seems to me, and from what I understand, that this is an extra contribution that’s been required in the past several years. I’m wondering whether or not we can soon expect that these employees will become part of the G.N.W.T. public service so we can avoid having this extra expense.

Mr. Chairman, this area is indeed popping up — the existing pension plan — as their plan is different from the G.N.W.T. plan. The employees there are in fact employees of the Hay River health authority.

There have been ongoing discussions over the last number of years of looking to pull that authority into the G.N.W.T. The decision hasn’t been made in that area, but work has been looked at. They would have to estimate the full cost of bringing employees into the G.N.W.T. It would have to follow a business planning process.

Just a follow-up comment. I understand it’s going to cost us some money to bring these guys into our public service. But I think, in the long run, it is going to save money. I would encourage the Minister of Finance to encourage his colleagues to get this underway and spend the money to save the money.

Mr. Chairman, as I stated, this action would have to be undertaken through our business planning process. The Minister of Health and Social Services, along with FMBS, would look at the impact of that decision, and it would have to come forward as part of a planning position.

Just one more follow-up to that. I understand that this has been looked at somewhat. To the degree that it has been looked at, has the potential for savings been identified? We are obviously looking at reductions coming up. By way of helping to determine how much priority to give to that future action, what have been the findings or the potential identified to date?

Mr. Chairman, again, the departments would have to justify some practices in the process or actions that would be looked at in trying to achieve bringing that grouping to the public service. Again, the estimates have been looked at in the past. It should fluctuate depending on the criteria that they use, the existing pension plan.

The way we pay employees and contributions would see us with an increase in expenditures beyond this amount and it would then be incorporated into an ongoing amount. One benefit would be that they would all be N.W.T. employees at that point.

Health Services Programs, not previously authorized: $6,036,000.

Health Services Programs, $6,036,000

approved.

Supplementary Health Programs, not previously authorized: $1,607,000.

Supplementary Health Programs, $1,607,000

approved.

Community Health Programs, not previously authorized: $1,207,000.

Community Health Programs, $1,207,000

approved.

Total Department, not previously authorized: $8,764,000. Agreed?

Total Department, $8,764,000 approved.

Page 14, Justice Operations, Services to Government, not previously authorized: $138,000.

Justice, Operations Expenditures, Services to

Government, $138,000 approved.

Law Enforcement, not previously authorized: $280,000.

Law Enforcement, $280,000 approved.

Legal Aid Services, not previously authorized: $403,000. Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Chairman, I am looking for some detail on this process where we are adding money. I think, as I understood earlier, it’s federal base money, so whether it’s catching up to the times and actual costs or not, I just want to make sure this money is going to those who need it the most.

I want to find out what services have been increased. If we’re not increasing services, I’d like to know what has been tamed down, if it’s paying debt. Anyway, I want to know the details of the $403,000.

Mr. Chairman, this amount, as the Member has pointed out, is an additional amount from a federal program that is incorporated into this process. I’m informed that the money will be useful in the recruitment and payment of family law lawyers to enable the lawyers to travel into communities prior to court parties arriving. So it gives them some advance opportunities to meet with those that are involved in the court process.

That is one of the areas. As we’re informed, it is not new money. The funding was approved for three years and sunsetted by the federal government, and they’re recently renewed it.

Mr. Chairman, changing gears but on the same subject, you said recruitment of family lawyers. Would the Minister be able to provide the details of the staffing levels of those who are were practising family law in the legal aid system. How much would this $403,000 change or add? Would that give us one lawyer or two lawyers? Would that give us a full complement, et cetera?

Mr. Chairman, we don’t have that level of detail at this time. We could work with the Department of Justice to provide that at a later term.

Legal Aid Services, not previously authorized: $403,000.

Legal Aid Services, $403,000 approved.

Courts, not previously authorized: $1,729,000. Agreed?

Courts, $1,729,000 approved.

Going on to page 15, Justice continued, Operations Expenditures, Community Justice and Corrections. Mr. Hawkins.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman. You flew through page 14 a little too quickly. I had a question on a couple of items on page 14.

Move back to page 14?

Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Chairman, I’ll start with this one. It looks like we have a $33,000 increase to fund increases associated with salary and life and disability insurance for our Territorial Court judges. If we ask ourselves aloud: how many judges do we have in the Territorial system? We have four. Over 12 months, that works out to be a lot of money as an increase just for insurance.

I’m just wondering maybe if the Minister can break down the detail. It looks like almost $600 per judge per month as an increase. That seems like a lot of

money just for an insurance sum. Did something change? Is something different? And how much is this policy costing us?

Mr. Chairman, this is broken down to $43,000, made up of an increase in the annual salaries of $14,000 and in life/disability insurance of approximately $29,000.

One of the things we look at is trying to keep the same rank as a lawyer or judges in other jurisdictions. We also work through the Remuneration Commission that is established, and this is the way we do that. Again, it deals with their court schedule and the amount of travel there would be when they fly into communities. I think that’s one of the reasons why the insurance piece is being dealt with.

The Minister is correct in the sense that when you take the $43,000 and you take out the $14,000 for salary increases, you’re left with the $29,000. But the $29,000 divided by four judges and 12 months works out to almost precisely a $562 increase in insurance fees. I’m just trying to get a sense of…. I don’t know anybody’s insurance that costs $562 for life. This is an additional increase. I’m just trying to make sense of this. It’s difficult for me to go out there and look people in the eye and say, “Well, we’ve just bumped up the insurance for judges for another almost $562.”

I want to know what’s wrong, what’s changed. How much are we normally paying for insurance per judge per month to justify it? That’s a huge increase. I couldn’t tell you what liability and life insurance costs — I’d be guessing — but I’m sure that’s the cost of a whole family’s life insurance. It just seems like a lot of money.

Mr. Chairman, the area this deals with is…. From my understanding, there are three existing judges on the circuit, and as well, the life and disability deals with two retired judges. As well, this is all handled through the Territorial Court Act. As the G.N.W.T., we do not set the salaries and the benefits for judges in the Northwest Territories.

Would the Minister be willing to provide the details of the questions I’ve asked earlier about the details of what their insurance is, the premiums, things like that — those types of details? I won’t repeat every one of those questions, but would he be willing to provide that detail to me?

I’ll go on to my next question, which is the $133,000, after he’s done.

We will work with the Department of Justice to get that information.

With good reason, the judges have an independent commission to review their salaries, and I stress “with good reason.” If I understand it correctly, it goes back to an act in 1998.

As I've explained to the Minister before, it seems as if we've hired the most expensive professionals to review the salaries of the most expensive professionals. Then we have to have someone to sit on both sides — who again is a very expensive consultant — to come up with a simple percentage. I don't belittle the actual salary, but it seems like a very expensive process to come up with a percentage just to say “Increase their salaries.” I heard someone say, “Let’s throw away all this gobbledygook and just give them the $133,000.” Chop it up four ways, and we are probably at their increase anyway.

What's restricting us from finding some way to attach the judges’ remuneration to some type of cost-of-living process — independent of the MLAs, independent of the public service — whereby we don't have to renegotiate everything every three years or so? It would probably save a lot of time if we passed legislation that effectively would do what this negotiation process does.

In this area we must be cautious, as the judiciary is considered a third arm of government. There is the executive, the legislative and the judiciary. The process established, as the Member pointed out, is one that has been in place since 1998. Every four years a commission is established and reviews the compensation for judges. That work is provided to the Minister of Justice for their consideration, to be brought to a business plan process for any adjustments.

This $133,000 breaks into three categories: commission members for this year, ’07-08, $58,400; commission legal counsel, $21,150; Territorial judges’ legal counsel, $53,788 — for the total of $133,000.

My point — which was made at the start of this, which I referenced — stands very clearly. We're spending a lot of money to talk about the most expensive people on our payroll by hiring expensive consultants to challenge and negotiate with more expensive consultants. I wouldn't doubt that these expensive consultants’ time is worth the money that they billed for, but it’s a process that seems to cost us money.

When we talk about times like these, where we have to find ways to be creative and succinct in how we can find ways to save money, a three-page piece of legislation could clear this up. I doubt that would cost this Assembly $133,000. If anything, it would provide certainty to the judges and their system, whereby they would get an appropriate

increase that is attached to a normal process, again outside of the areas I talked about.

I reaffirm what the Premier — I should say the FMB Minister at this time; it’s the same guy, which is confusing some days — I reaffirm what he said, which is, yes, it is a third arm; it’s independent; and it’s meant to be independent and not tied to what we do. That being said, we could streamline and simplify the process and give it the respect it’s due, rather than sending negotiators off every four years at $133,000.

Although I don't have the tally from the one they did four years ago, the way prices continue to go, I can guarantee that the one that's due four years from now will be more than $133,000. And we'll be looking back and saying, “Gee, three or four pieces of paper would have cost us very little, compared to this process.”

I would ask the Minister: would he commit to evaluating this situation to see if they could create some type of discussion paper to review the situation and see if there’s a way we could do this in a simpler process? Again, to reaffirm certainly for the justice system that they will be paid appropriately, but we can get it on track where it does it by itself.

Mr. Chairman, this process, as the Members have discussed, we would gladly look at it if the committee were to make recommendations in this area. Then we could put the energy into it. Otherwise this process will continue to be used during the business planning process. There’s opportunity for Members to make recommendations and committees to make recommendations in this area when we get into the business planning stage.

Well, I’m going to challenge the FMB Minister at this time by saying: when you’re a decision maker — and you are the decision maker, by the way, in this particular case — you don’t need the committee to tell you to think about something. I think it’s well within your authority to look at and evaluate the process. When we talk about stepping forward in our $135 million process of reductions and streamlining and course correction, this is a very simple process we could discuss. I guarantee you it wouldn’t cost $133,000.

I would ask the Minister, once again: would he take it back for further consideration and maybe take a chance to review his thoughts before he provides the final answer?

Though, yes, I sit as the Minister Responsible for the Financial Management Board Secretariat, we still do operate in a consensus-style government. I seek the input of Members on a regular basis about how we do business.

Courts, not previously authorized, Mr. Hawkins.

The next subject is the $493,000 for court travel. Although it may be difficult to phrase a question, there is some concern that the court circuit is done in the most expensive way, a most expensive process. I would like the FMB Minister to ensure that we just don’t charter for charter’s sake when it comes to planes. Maybe we’d consider things like sched flights.

Again, I don’t think there have been any court cases that have been kicked out of the system, that I’m aware of in recent history, because they decided to have a trial on a day the plane actually flew into a community as opposed to waiting for the charter to come in and out because Lady Justice didn’t have her chance to do her proper due by the chance of missing one day in the system. I don’t think justice is being denied in any process. And I would just like the Minister to put an eye to the costs of travel, especially as I reaffirmed earlier about these very difficult and expensive times we’re living in.

This is, as I’m informed, an increase in the court circuits that are being held throughout the year that were planned for this fiscal year. I believe the Minister of Justice would be able to give more detail to the Members. If we can, Mr. Chairman, give the Minister of Justice, Mr. Lafferty, an opportunity to provide a little more detail.

As you know, we are unique in the North compared to other jurisdictions. We are one of the jurisdictions that provide court circuits to the most isolated communities, as opposed to southern jurisdictions. It does cost us money to travel to these communities.

We do work with the judicial system where the court circuit, most of the time, uses scheduled services. As you know, some small, isolated communities do not have scheduled services. At times they have to fly in with chartered planes. The judiciary court schedule is based on the needs of the communities. That’s where the cost would come in, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairman, would the Minister of Justice be willing to provide the details of that charter scheduling stuff he talked about? It doesn’t sound like it would be that difficult, seeing how he said they typically take sched flights.

I’d like to know the details on how often they charter, how that works with timing, such as what days they flew in and flew out. I want to see that in comparison to the normal scheduled flights and how many tickets would have been considered at that time.

I will say that yes, probably in some cases, if you’re sending a plane full of people in and out, it probably makes sense. If we’re sending a full plane in and only fill three seats and make the plane sit there for four or six or eight hours so we can fly them back out as opposed to making people sit there, maybe they could spend a night in the community — a little economic development, such as eating in a restaurant there assuming they have one, or renting from the local bed-and-breakfast. Those are the things to be talking about. That’s the detail I want to see. Line the two up against each other.

Mr. Chair, we can certainly provide more detailed information on the court circuits in the communities. There are communities that at times the judges would have to spend a night. But most times they don’t have accommodation or restaurants, as the Member indicated. We are working to the best of our ability with what we have, chartering to a community or on a regularly scheduled flight. Yes, certainly we can provide that information.

First, I’ll say thank you to the Justice Minister who will supply me with that detailed information. May I encourage him not to just stop at the detail I’ve offered. If he thinks something’s relevant to highlight, please do.

The other point I want to make is that if these communities are good enough for MLAs to stay in, I certainly hope that judges are not too good to be there too.

I too have questions in regard to the expenditure of $493,000. I’d like to know the total cost of that transportation of the court circuit in the fiscal year.

Mr. Chairman, we’ll get that information to the Member as well.

We do have to realize the importance the courts play in our communities. We also have to ensure that we do control the costs of travelling in the North but also realizing the communities should be able to host a lot of these parties. I know that in the community of Fort McPherson, for instance, we do have a hotel there. I think wherever possible, if they can stay an extra couple of days or a day in a community where there are hotels, meals can be arranged if they make every effort to do so.

Talking to people, especially at the airport, and talking to court workers, they do hold a lot of aircraft, which is very expensive. They fly in, do their court business, fly back to Inuvik, spend a night in Inuvik and fly back to their community the next day. I think that has to stop. If anything, they should make every effort to stay in those communities overnight until they conclude all their business and then move on.

I’d like to ask the Minister if he can get those details of the communities they’ve stayed in, how long they stayed in those communities, and exactly how many days they’ve spent overnight in communities in regard to this travel cost.

Mr. Chairman, in fact, we can provide that number. I can give a quick update here, but we can provide an attachment to give the days spent in communities. The original amount budgeted for the

’

07-‘08 fiscal year was

$1,058,000. The court’s scheduled sitting days, as they are defined in 2006-2007, were 273, and in 2007 the sitting days scheduled — you need the total amount here — were 400. I’ll give you the actual amount. That was Yellowknife at 273. But the total communities, a grand total: 319 for

’

06,

469 for

’

07. And we’ll provide the attachment on the

actual days that courts regularly sat so far.

I’d like to ask the Premier if he can provide the information that he’s read out to the committee so we also have a chance to review it. And also in consideration of the budget process we’re going through in the next couple of months, we would have the opportunity to read it before that process takes place.

Mr. Chairman, we’ll be able to provide the information on these scheduled sitting days in total for all communities, along with what Minister Lafferty is committed to providing as well.

Justice, Operations Expenditures, Courts, not previously authorized: $1,729,000.

Justice, Operations Expenditures, Courts,

$1,729,000 approved.

Justice continued, Operations Expenditures, Community Justice and Corrections, not previously authorized: $214,000.

I’d just like to ask the Minister: are there any other funds, either by way of new funding that will be available to communities for Community Justice Programs, by way of programs established, Justice Strategy funds? We do have Justice committees and other committees, and a lot of them are struggling with the existing funding arrangements we have. I think it would be good if we can see if there are any other federal program dollars available for Justice.

Mr. Chairman, the information that I can provide is the $145,000 as required for this is coming out of expenditures supported by the federal contribution funding agreement under the Aboriginal Justice Strategy Fund for this fiscal year of

’

07-08. There are negotiations ongoing in trying

to renew that agreement.

All right, we’re on page 15, Justice continued, Operations Expenditures, Community Justice and Corrections, not previously authorized: $214,000. Agreed?

Justice continued, Operations Expenditures,

Community Justice and Corrections, $214,000 approved.