Total department, not previously authorized, $405,000.

Last, page, 7, Environment and Natural Resources, operations expenditures, corporate management, not previously authorized, $1 million.

Total department, not previously authorized, $1 million.

Does committee agree that we have concluded consideration of Tabled Document 42-16(5), Supplementary Appropriation Estimates No. 1, 2010-2011 (Operations Expenditures)?

We have concluded Tabled Document... Mrs. Groenewegen.

Motion is on the floor. Motion is in order. To the motion.

Question has been called.

---Carried

Sergeant-at-Arms, if you could please escort the witnesses out of the Chamber. Thank you.

Next on our agenda, as agreed previously, is Tabled Document 43-16(5), Supplementary Estimates No. 3, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures). Is committee agreed that we proceed with Tabled Document 43-16(5)?

Since we have agreed, I would now like to ask the Minister responsible, the honourable Minister Miltenberger, to please make opening comments on Tabled Document 43-16(5), Supplementary Estimates No. 3.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m here to present Supplementary Estimates No. 3, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures). This document outlines an increase of $29.254 million for operations expenditures and an increase of $106.800 million for capital investment expenditures in the 2010-2011 fiscal year. The total supplementary request is $136.134 million.

This supplementary estimate includes:

1. $135.9 million for the carry-over of funding for infrastructure projects. This funding was approved and lapsed in the 2009-10 fiscal period.

The carry-overs for capital investment expenditures in this supplementary estimates represent about 34 percent of the 2009-10 revised capital budget. This percentage is equal to last year’s, but is significantly lower than carry-overs from the 2007-08 and 2006-07 fiscal periods, which were 48 percent and 43 percent respectively.

Given the significant size of our capital budget in 2009-10, a record $446 million, I am pleased to see that the new capital planning process, including the fall approval of the capital estimates, is yielding positive results.

1. $218 million for the Department of Education, Culture and Employment to increase the planned size of the community learning centre on the Hay River Reserve, which will be offset by a contribution from the K’atlodeeche First Nation.

I am prepared to review the details of the supplementary estimates of the document.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Would the Minister like to bring in witnesses into the House?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Does the committee agree?

I thank you, committee. I’ll now ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses into the Chamber.

Thank you. Minister Miltenberger, can you please introduce your witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Margaret Melhorn, deputy minister of Finance; Sandy Kalgutkar, deputy secretary to the Financial Management Board. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger, and welcome to the witnesses. I will now open the floor to general comments on Tabled Document 46-16(5), Supplementary Estimates No. 3, 2010-2011 (Infrastructure Expenditures). Are there any general comments? Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regard to the Building Canada funds and the funds that we received from Ottawa, I noted that there are a lot of cost overruns associated with that program. I’d just like to know from the Minister exactly what are we doing to…because the issue I have a problem with, especially in this government, is that we have a new system and every time a community asks for assistance from this government, they’re saying, oh well, you get gas tax money so you should offset that cost from your gas tax money, and if the government is now saying, well, we’re not responsible, but yet I noted from a lot of these expenditures, which are over and above the expenditures of those items as they were presented by way of the Building Canada funds and also matching the funds from communities. So I’d just like to know from the department, have we set a precedent here in regards to a notion that you go to a community and tell them sorry, we can’t help you, but we’re able to help out other communities by investing government funds over and above the obligation that we have under gas tax? So I’d just like to know, if that’s the case we should ensure that we offer that to all communities regardless of the situation that they’re in since the precedent is now set.