Thank you, Madam Chair. As the Minister knows, we’ve been pushing for a full-cost accounting approach on this and I assume that the report does look at the cost of the bulk storage facilities for fossil fuels and clean-up costs and so on, and addresses the net costs and benefits, environmental impacts and so on. Is there any conclusions that the Minister can mention and subsequent action to start putting this in place that the Minister is prepared to share at this time?

I’ve only had a really brief look at the report, not much detail for myself. So for more detail I’d be happy to pass it over to Mr. Guy or we can wait until it’s distributed and have an opportunity to have a more in-depth discussion in committee.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Guy.

Thank you, Mr. Guy. Anything further, Mr. Bromley?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I’m sort of concluding from this that there are no actions planned at this moment in time and the next step will be to review that report and make some recommendations status quo or move forward. Is it likely that we will be seeing that this year and are there dollars available for that sort of activity or where are we with respect to that?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are no plans in the main estimates to change to a different source in the petroleum products division. We as a department are

continuing to look at our own infrastructure and where appropriate upgrading them to have pellet capacity. We discussed that a little bit yesterday and we’re still interested in doing that and moving forward there. That will create more demand. As far as changes to petroleum products division, this main estimates, nothing. Once we have an opportunity to discuss this with committee, we’ll figure out where we’re going to go from here.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Bromley is done. Are there any other questions on page 7-23? Are we agreed that we are concluded page 7-23? Okay. I’ll read it. Page 7-23, Public Works and Services, activity summary, petroleum products, operations expenditure summary, $2.134 million.

Page 7-24, Public Works and Services, information item, lease commitments, infrastructure. Any questions? Seeing none, we will move on to page 7-26, Public Works and Services, information item, Technology Service Centre (Chargeback). Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Although I know it isn’t specifically placed on this particular page it does relate to the subject very well, which is the chargebacks. I’m wondering where the chargebacks actually show up in someone’s revenue file within the budget. This is the consolidated amount of what the chargebacks look like on every single line and all the budgets the department sections pay. Where does this consolidated $18 million show up under revenue in this particular budget? This obviously is the launching pad of it to go somewhere.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is not revenue. It is not new money to the Government of the Northwest Territories. It’s identified in every department’s budget. The TSC charges a fee for the services it provides. It will send an invoice to the department. For instance, Public Works and Services is $984,000. They send up an invoice and then there’s a journal voucher, an accounting exercise to transfer the money from that department into the TSC so that they can cover their costs. So it’s not revenue to the government. It’s an internal reallocation of money within the government.

I would find it odd. In this particular case I’m not an accountant and I don’t try to represent one, but I would say that your full-cost accounting it makes sense to recognize that cost. That said, we get budgeted and that gets taken out of our budget so it’s got to show up somewhere on our revenue side of stream. So why wouldn’t we show that somewhere, because it looks like it’s

been taken out but it mysteriously just vanishes. From an accounting point of view, it almost seems like there’s no close to the file.

It’s not, like I said, revenue. It’s an internal reallocation. It is tracked. Every department identifies what they’re paying for those services. The money is transferred to the Department of Public Works and Services and in particular ITI. Maybe for a more accounting response, I’ll go to Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Mr. Hawkins.

Well, I’m going to have to take a stab because my earpiece doesn’t work and I can’t hear anybody over there. All I heard was something about it showing up and not said. That’s not the people providing the rebut, but I mean, quite frankly I keep thinking I’m hearing that it just shows up as income on page 7-26 but it’s just treated as money that disappears.

I would say from a good accounting practice I think my point still should stand and I think any accountant would be quite concerned that it sort of disappears into general revenue if it’s just clawed back. This is more than an administrative exercise. This is a financial exercise taken out of people’s budgets. Whether you’re MLAs buying computers or getting support, it comes off your budget. If your department of whatever, whether you’re Health or Education or MACA or ITI, whatever the case may be, your money is being taken out of the global budget and it should show up as revenue somewhere because it’s treated as income on this page and I would say, but it doesn’t look like it shows up as income. I’m just not sure what to say other than that. The income should show up as a line item clearly somewhere else. People need to know where the money is going. It just seems odd that…They didn’t say the words “trust me,” but if you read between the lines it’s like, don’t worry, we’ve taken care of it. What are they going to do to articulate it somewhere on a budget line item that shows that they’ve captured $18 million-plus?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Maybe you should advise… Oh, the clerk is looking after your earpiece item. Mr. Abernethy, I think the question is where do these numbers show up elsewhere in the budget. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As the Government of the Northwest Territories it shows up in every department under the TSC chargeback line that we talked about previously. The Member is correct; there might be some errors in wording on this page. This isn’t really income. This is a chargeback or – what was the other word we used – a cost recovery within the Government of the Northwest Territories. Revenue is usually money coming into the government that would go to general revenues. There’s no money going to general revenues here. It’s a reallocation of funds. It’s a chargeback. It’s a cost recovery within the government itself. So every department shows what their cost is and that money comes out of their budget and goes into TSC where they provide the services, and we provide a comprehensive list of the actuals and main estimates in every budget so people know what the costs of services are within the government to the government.

I thank you to the staff for somehow miraculously getting this thing working. The fact is, the money is taken out of my budget, by way of example, and so it’s aggregated out through the normal process but it shows up here as income. I’m not going to argue semantics here, but the fact its income should show up somewhere other than on one particular page such as 7-26. It should show up as a revenue line within the department’s revenue and it doesn’t show up there. I did look for it. Unless, of course, I missed it. But I see great money rolled in under electrical permits, boiler, gas, but I’m not here to discuss page 7-9. The fact is it doesn’t even show up under the general revenue through that. It’s got to show up somewhere.

Any accountant will tell you that you can’t just keep taking money, show your consolidated amount. I’m not talking about the individual department lines. All I was trying to point out is all department lines have a TSC chargeback in one form or another. So here it shows the consolidated amount of all of those chargebacks, so where does the money go? That question then leads into why doesn’t it show up under revenue stream?

Do we not have someone with accounting experience or an expert willing to make the commitment and explain why it can just be deducted but not show up as being inputted under the revenue? Because it would go back into revenues.

I’m not sure how to answer the question. It’s not revenue. It’s never been revenue. It’s a chargeback. It’s a reallocation of funds. It’s all internal to government. It’s not new money coming into the government, which is what revenue technically is. We provide service within government to government and there’s a cost to that from each department. Computers that the

Legislative Assembly buys and has serviced through TSC is covered under the $324,000 budget that’s identified here on this page as well as on their individual line item. It’s not revenue. I don’t know what else to say.