Total Department of Transportation, not previously authorized, $4.721 million. Agreed?

Thank you. Does the committee agree that we have concluded consideration of Tabled Document 248-17(5)?

Thank you. Ms. Bisaro.

The motion is being distributed. Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question is being called. The motion is carried.

---Carried

I would like to thank Mr. Aumond and Mr. Kalgutkar for their attendance here today, and I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort them from the Chamber.

Thank you, committee. We will resume. Committee has agreed to look at Bill 37, Financial Administration Act. I will ask the Minister responsible for the bill if he has introductions to make. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am here to present Bill 37, Financial Administration Act.

The modernization of the Financial Administration Act has been a long-term initiative as there has been no major review of the act since 1987. The FAA is intended to provide a legislative framework for the effective and efficient stewardship of government resources and accountability requirements for the management and use of these resources. Bill 37 will establish a framework for improved accountability, transparency and fiscal responsibility in respect of public money and other money administered by government and public agencies.

I will be prepared to answer any questions that committee members may have.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. I’ll go to the chair of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and committee will consider the bill and opening comments. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to be here representing the Standing Committee on Government Operations. We would like to commend and thank the Minister and his

department and staff in collaboration as we prepared the report and, as well, the final, third reading we have coming up here, hopefully, later today.

The bill is a very complicated piece of legislation, and as we indicated in our report, we needed the expertise of a contractor. Again, we want to echo our thanks to Mr. Lew Voytilla who took a painstaking task to look at this line by line and help educate the committee on some of the rigors of the financial acumen and the public accounts and the public system of government operations. So for that, the committee is thankful.

Of course, committee members might have further questions here today, but on behalf of the committee we would like to thank and commend the government for a good piece of legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger, do you have witnesses to bring into the House?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Does committee agree?

Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber.

Minister Miltenberger, I’ll get you to introduce your witnesses to the Chamber.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me Mike Aumond, deputy minister; Jamie Koe, director of budgeting and evaluations; and Ms. Kelly McLaughlin, director of legislation.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Committee, I’ll open up the floor to general comments on Bill 37. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to make a few comments about the work that committee and Minister and staff did on this bill. As the Minister said in his remarks, it has been a long-term initiative. The amendments to this act were long overdue. This is a totally rewritten act and it is going to be quite beneficial.

The actual work to get a new act has been ongoing since 2005. I think that’s when the first LP was proposed. It has gone back and forth over several Assemblies. I think we were successful in this Assembly, and with this particular piece of legislation, because there was a great deal of collaboration – and Mr. Dolynny referred to that already – but there was a great deal of collaboration between committee and Minister, between Finance staff and Ledge staff, and between the lawyers on the Finance side and the Law Clerk on the Legislative Assembly side. I think

that enabled us to make a number of amendments that have improved the bill.

There was a need for the committee… We did a lot of work initially on our own with our own staff and then felt that that there were areas where we weren’t all that certain of the ramifications of some of the suggested changes, so we engaged the services of a consultant. I think that was money well spent in that we got a number of recommendations from the consultant’s report which certainly benefited the bill and made it a better bill in the end.

I just want to mention a couple of things that I note as being important in the bill and some changes that will take place as this new bill goes into effect. It is a goal of this particular bill for the government to exert greater control over public agencies. Not so much to tell them what to do but to make sure that they are accountable and that they are spending public money wisely. There was quite a bit of concern initially on the part of committee because we didn’t really understand what the intent was. I think, after several conversations and the understanding of the intent, I certainly am comfortable, as a committee member, that public agencies are going to have to ensure that they’re using the money correctly and wisely and that they are accountable and transparent, but they’re not going to be hampered in the way that they go about their business for their organization.

I had a large concern with some of the tax revenues for education boards. There are only two or three that have their own tax revenues, and now I’m comfortable that with legislation, both the FAA and the Education Act, that the education boards that do produce their own revenue through taxation will be able to keep control of those funds.

There are a number of provisions of the Financial Administration Manual that have been moved from policy into legislation, and those are good moves. I think it’s going to improve accountability and transparency all around.

There are two large pieces of policy which I want to highlight. They were necessary, and they’re both quite prominent in this new bill, Bill 37. One is a Planning and Accountability Framework, which the Minister must produce, and a Fiscal Responsibility Policy, which the Minister must produce, and both of which through discussion and amendments there will be an opportunity for the Legislative Assembly and standing committees of the Assembly to provide input into those two policies whenever changes are contemplated and want to be brought forward.

Lastly, I am pleased that this act has reached this stage. It’s going to bring the act in line with many of our current practices and procedures. I think we’ve been doing things from a financial perspective that we know are right but they haven’t necessarily been recorded in legislation, and they will be as we go

forward now. We will have an updated act and we will have a modernized act, and I think in a couple of areas we are going to be at the leading edge, if not leading the country, in a few areas. Kudos to the Minister and staff for getting this done.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Next I have Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I want to echo the substantive work that went in behind this review of this act. I can assure the public that reviewing financial acumen in detail isn’t exactly sometimes the most palatable work a legislator does but it is, indeed, one that looks after the public interest, especially the issue of looking after the public purse. So for that I believe due diligence was achieved and harmony at the end.

I want to spend just a little bit of time on one of the motions that was brought forth with the Minister and, of course, there was concurrence, but I’m a firm believer that we could have done better, we could have gone further, and for that I want to make sure that my views are enshrined today here with the department. That was clause 13. Now, to put that into context, clause 13 has to deal with the approving of the Fiscal Responsibility Policy, and with it we are pleased with the fact that there was concurrence from the Minister, “that any amendment to the policy, the board shall consult with the Legislative Assembly or a committee of the Legislative Assembly.” For that I’m very pleased to see that happen. But I don’t believe that’s entirely the end of it. I think this is the beginning where government needs to look at its own internal, we call it big P policy, and look at the ability for it to be enshrined not in policy but in law. Many other jurisdictions in Canada have undertaken very similar patterns. In fact, we’ve seen places like New Brunswick, which has enacted financial or fiscal accountability law and have been very successful.

We know that the department has struggled. I know they are showing improvements, especially with their public accounts. But in terms of the public reporting aspect, the C.D. Howe Institute has recently given the government a D-plus rating in their reporting requirements, and I know that there was an exchange here in the House with the Minister and there was commitment to take a look at that and look at improvements. While I applaud the effort of the government to look at bettering our accounting questions, it does lend the question, why do we still see today a fundamental piece of our borrowing, a fundamental piece of how we debt management in a policy that not that many years ago was enshrined in a small pamphlet. In fact, it was in place in 2008, under the direction of the Honourable Floyd Roland, who at that time was chair of the GNWT Financial Management Board.

Again, with this policy, there are enshrined FAM sections, like section 1400, and these are

fundamentally the compass waypoints, the guiding waypoints for all the financial administration actions of the government. So this very small pamphlet which is basically, if you were to Google and go online and type in Fiscal Responsibility Policy, this is what you would see. Of course, this pamphlet is definitely out of date and it still makes references to section 300 of the FAM. However, up until this act, the concern the committee had was that the Finance Minister could unilaterally make changes that fundamentally affected the accounting acumen of the government without any consultation with Members of the House.

Now we have legislation that protects them and I want to echo that. But as I said earlier, if you want to enshrine the ability to have better fiscal transparency and better accountability, you have to look at these high level functionalities in their weight in law and not in a policy and definitely not in regulations, so that the public has the ability to reference it easily and, more importantly, that a full vetting process is before the House.

Now we have one component, here but I’m saying, Mr. Chair, I don’t believe we have gone far enough. I’m hoping that with time and with changes of fiscal and public accounting standards’ attitude, we can get to the same level as our provincial jurisdictions down south. So all the while what we’re trying to do is to hold the government accountable for the actions it takes.

So with that, I again don’t want to bequeath the fact that we don’t have a good piece of legislation before the House, I’m just saying that we have further opportunities as we move forward and I’m hoping that at some point in the future the government, the department and the Minister and whoever the future Minister is, will take the liberty to investigate further actions on enshrining better policy, big P policy, in putting this in the proper legislative framework that I believe it’s intended for and not to keep it in the form that it is today.

So, again, I want to thank my colleagues here from the Standing Committee on Government Operations for a timeless effort in getting us here today. I don’t want to take away from the success story of this act and this bill, but it was very much important for me to bring this forward today to the House and to this Minister to share my final comments on this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Committee, we are on general comments on Bill 37. General comments. Committee’s agreed no further general comments.

We’ll proceed clause by clause on Bill 37. Does committee agree to consider clause by clause in groups of 20? Is that agreed?