We don’t have that level of detail, but we can commit to providing it to the committee.

I’ll wait until I get that level of detail from the Minister of Finance, and I’ll provide a suggestion after we have that comparison data.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. We’re on page 8. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick follow-up on Mr. Hawkins’ questions. Presumably there are years when there is a surplus, when there is what we would call a good fire season. What happens to that surplus, and is there a chance it could be rolled into a fund?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The hope is, of course, that those funds in that area would lapse. If there are other costs in other areas, you’d have to look. There is some ability to move money between activities, but clearly, if we don’t spend the budget, that money would be there as lapsed funds and would either return eventually to general revenue, or if there are other agreed upon expenditures that money can be moved to, they would be considered.

Thank you for the comments from the Minister. I have spent a little time in that department in a past life and can appreciate the interest in utility for any surplus funds. Perhaps that’s an opportunity to look at sharing a surplus and rolling part of it into a fund, if that would be financially and administratively possible. So no question.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d just like to seek clarification from the Minister. It was difficult to hear him. I wasn’t sure if he said that the surplus could be spent on something other than the fire suppression.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Within government and financial administration there is some ability to move money, depending on in between activities, within activities. There is a clear process to do that. If a department is managing its budget and they have issued a number of priorities but they have funds they can move within those parameters, then departments have some latitude to do that. The issue of lapses at year-end…. Some money is specifically coffered, as they say, or identified only for the purpose that it

was voted for. In government there is some ability to move money within departments or within other areas of the budget.

Now I’m nervous about giving the fire suppression budget too much money, because who knows where it’ll end up.

Would fire suppression money be considered one of those earmarks of dollars that are strictly to be focused in on that type of line item only? Or if there was a surplus, could the fire suppression money be used, say, on Human Resources or maybe jet boats somewhere? If that’s the case, how many months would it take for this Assembly to get notice that the money was used for some other purpose and in what detail?

The money that’s before this Assembly was very specifically targeted for that one purpose only, which was for fire suppression, and it was laid out in the special warrant. As I have indicated, in many cases money that is laid out for government programs is often given a special designation so that there is only one use. Any other change from that has to go back for further approval. So this money here had one use and one use only that it was allowed for.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Are there any other questions? Ms. Bisaro.

Mr. Chair, just one question in regard to the possibility of a fund for unused dollars that are earmarked for fire suppression. Is there anything in our legislation or in our regulations that does not allow us to take unexpended funds from, say, forest management, intended for fire suppression, and put them into a fund as a holdover for another year?

That would require a change, I understand, to the legislation.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Any further questions?

We’re on page 8, Environment and Natural Resources, Operations Expenditures, Forest Management, Special Warrants: $2.95 million.

Department of Environment and Natural

Resources, Operations Expenditures, Forest Management, Special Warrants: $2.95 million, approved.

Total Department, Special Warrants: $2.95 million.

Department of Environment and Natural

Resources, Operations Expenditures, Total Department, Special Warrants: $2.95 million, approved.

Moving along to page 9, Municipal and Community Affairs, Capital Investment Expenditures, Regional Operations, Not Previously Authorized: negative $1.562 million.

Department of Municipal and Community

Affairs, Capital Investment Expenditures, Regional Operations, Not Previously Authorized: negative $1.562 million, approved.

Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: negative $1.562 million.

Department of Municipal and Community

Affairs, Capital Investment Expenditures, Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: negative $1.562 million, approved.

Moving along to page 10, Public Works and Services, Capital Investment Expenditures, Asset Management, Not Previously Authorized: $500,000.

Department of Public Works and Services,

Capital Investment Expenditures, Asset Management, Not Previously Authorized: $500,000, approved.

Technology Service Centre, Not Previously Authorized: $1.3 million.

Department of Public Works and Services,

Capital Investment Expenditures, Technology Service Centre, Not Previously Authorized: $1.3 million, approved.

Petroleum Products, Not Previously Authorized: $3.85 million. Mr. Bromley.

Mr. Chair, I can’t let this go without commenting once again on what some of the potential savings are by looking at fuel alternatives and transportation alternatives. I realize this one is for the aviation facility. It’s very difficult to avoid for Yellowknife, but it does raise the cost of maintaining tank farms. I just wanted to raise that as something we should be on the watch for. I’m sure the Minister is.