EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
How it all starts is it starts with the Financial Management Board. We set targets and we set directions for the deputy ministers and other officials to plan the budget.
It starts with us. Essentially, we can place caps on what departments want to do.
At the Department of Finance, of course, we work daily with the money. A lot of it is cash management and cash flows, so we know where the money is going to.
We work with variance reports and we work with the departments.
So by nature, we are very conservative and cautious at the Department of Finance, and I have been signalling for the last several months that we have to be prudent and then people were actually calling me “Captain Prudence” now. I am thinking ahead to next year and the year beyond.
The fact of the matter is that 93 percent of our funds or revenues come from the federal government through our TFF, Territorial Formula Financing Agreement, and through other contributions.
If any of those were to be affected, we would be seriously affected at our level.
I know the Government of Canada is into reviewing their programs and services and they are probably going to make some cuts. I am worried that those cuts will trickle down to the provinces and territories.
I know on the same hand, the Government of Nunavut has been expanding every year. Since 1999, our annual budget has more than doubled in 11 years.
At some point, common sense tells you that you have to start being more efficient and more effective, utilize your funds better, look at your programs, look at your services, and see if they still match the needs that you had developed them for ten years ago or even five years ago.
We are telling the departments to start to think to budget to actual. If your five-year history is that you’re only going to be at 75 percent capacity in terms of staff, why ask for 100 percent? You will ask for 75 percent and then we will use the other 25 percent for other programs that can be spread throughout the government or throughout all of the departments and re-profile them for other important programs and projects.
I see that that’s happening.
Our Department of Finance led the way last year when we did budget to actual and several other departments have done it. Others are moving in that direction. This exercise here has proven useful and helpful to us.
It has provided us with like a whack on the side of the head, I guess, that we’ve got to be prepared to deal with issues like this where there’s an urgent demand for large injections of cash. Where is it coming from? Our officials have worked with the Department of Finance officials and we set the 3 percent and they found 3 percent.
My colleagues are quite right to say that in the long term, it may affect them. We’re going to continue to work with officials and work with my colleagues at the cabinet level and the FMB level to see how we can do the program reviews, do the review of expending and hiring, put more restrictions on certain activities, and certainly monitor sole source contracts and other contracts.
The members were grilling us last week on it and that’s been quite expensive.
I’m convinced in my mind that we can save a lot of money if we just learn to be more efficient with our money, plan better, and put more controls in place.
So when a worst case scenario unfolds with the TFF next year, if we get the same amount of money, we will be prepared. If we get less… well, I hope that we don’t get less, but if we get less, then we may be prepared.
With us having gone through this exercise and if we do get less next year, then we will be able to address it because we’ve got this experience in working with all of the members.
It’s important to manage your money.
A lot of the money that is coming through this exercise right now has come from travel, vacant positions, or positions that have become vacant, so the funds were there.
Certain departments, like the Department of Education, because they’re mandated to provide a certain level of services, they were able to contribute less, but they have contributed more in the past.
The Department of Finance, because we’re a central agency and we have centrally administered funds, couldn’t contribute as much.
I’m hopeful that we will learn from this exercise and I am hopeful that officials out there will be more prudent in managing their departmental budgets.
I would love to be in a position to tell Mr. Elliott that I guarantee certain things, but I can’t guarantee because I would just be speculating.
What I want to tell him, his colleagues, and other members is that this has been a good lesson for all of us on the government side and a wake-up call that we have to manage our money and manage it wisely.
We have made those commitments throughout the last week and a bit through questions and through the media.
I know that Minister Tootoo has done media interviews and made those statements.
As the Minister of Finance, I have issued the directive.
I’m working very closely with the Public Agencies Council officials, the members on there, to put even more oversight onto Crown agencies. So accountability is ramping up very quickly.
I appreciate the scrutiny and oversight by the various standing committees that have worked with us through this exercise.
Is the FMB looking at re-evaluating all of the PYs within the Government of Nunavut to see, again, in looking at how we can better save money?
Again I don’t have a full understanding because I’m not on the other side where the ministers are and not working with the day-to-day running of a department, but from my side, I know one of the things I was probably quoted as saying was that we have these vacant positions that have been vacant for five years. Why we can’t just get rid of them?
Again, it makes you think, “Well, if they’re on the slate as being a person who should be hired, maybe they’re there for a reason.” Again we’re actually going into the other issue that we will be debating and talking about in September about human resources and asking people to take on responsibilities of one or two positions to try and maintain the day-to-day operation of running their department or running of a department within the government.
In terms of ways of saving money, is your department looking at the PYs that are given out and whether there are any that can be gotten rid of?
Mr. Chairman, through the annual budgeting exercise with the main estimates, we’re always doing that. The Department of Finance is working with all of the departments, but it’s up to individual departments to review the PYs and whether they need certain positions to deliver certain programs.
At the FMB level, we have made a decision with respect to PY controls, what we call person year controls.
We lifted that, so we gave flexibility to deputy ministers. If they have a position that is funded, they could freeze that position and then create another position and fund it.
The department works very closely with the individual departments.
They would be required to work closely with the Department Human Resources and that.
So we have given that authority to deputy ministers to manage their PYs.
So if there is a position that hasn’t been staffed for a year, there’s probably a very good reason to freeze it rather than asking for funding for a new position. You would freeze that other position and ask for permission or approval to use the funds for a new position rather than asking for funds for a new position.
We have been actively engaged in that type of activity.
I would just like to remind all of the members here that we should keep it to whatever is on page 2 when you’re asking questions. We don’t want to go back to stuff that we already agreed to.
So if it’s on page 2, you can ask a question. Otherwise, I would prefer if you didn’t.
I hope that wasn’t directed towards me because I know, as we went through each of the departments, there were compensation and benefits for every department where money was allocated for certain positions and it was scraped aside to come up with it. So it’s sort of a general question for every department within there.
My concern is there are needed programs out there. There are employees who are working their hardest.
Again, to me, I can understand why Mr. Okalik and Mr. Arvaluk were not in favour of cutting funding towards the Department of Education. As we keep pushing, education is very important.
The programs for implementing DEAs and understanding the new Language Act, it needs to be put into the schools.
We don’t want to cut programs. We don’t want to cut services. It sounds like this year, in a way, that is what we’re doing.
We have to get by with what we have. Again it has been hard making decisions on what should be cut and what shouldn’t be cut.
So I guess the reason I’m asking these questions is because: what guarantees do we have that this isn’t going to happen again?
It’s gone through four years of all of the checks and balances. Even the Auditor General of Canada was involved and it was missed, and now we’re doing this exercise.
I’m just wondering if the minister could explain. I know he said he couldn’t give us any guarantees, but what is put in place so that this doesn’t happen again?
I just want to remind you that we did go through all of these departments, so there were lots of opportunities to ask questions. I guess if the minister wants to answer, quite obviously, he has that option.
Thank you. Minister Peterson.
I thank Mr. Elliott for his question.
I understand where Mr. Elliott is coming from.
It’s his job to hold the government accountable, and he and his colleagues are doing a great job in that.
As I said earlier, we’re learning and everybody is learning from this.
My Department of Finance is going to become more involved with departments. They know that through the deputy ministers’ committees and other committees that they work at. At the FMB level, we’re certainly cognizant of what has to be done.
We have some very active, hot and heavy discussions about budgets and issues like this.
As chairman of the Public Agencies Council, I have been stressing the need to be providing more accountability for public agencies and statutory bodies.
We’re going to get some resources to actually support the Public Agencies Council internally through the Department of Finance and probably meet more frequently. It’s required to meet quarterly, but I have been going monthly since March.
We’re going to invite ministers to actually appear with officials to give us regular updates.
Through directives, if we notice that there is an issue, I can issue ministerial directives to require monthly reports or quarterly reports. We have done that.
We have another committee called the Central Accountability Committee and we’re developing the terms of reference.
They will be a group of deputy ministers who will be tasked to find ways within the government to save money or to develop more efficient ways to deliver programs and services and work on budgets.
So there are a lot of activities underway because of this entire exercise, but it was happening even before that. This issue crystallized how urgent it is that we have to have more accountability and better financial systems.
I have been talking to my deputy minister about issuing regular directives to all Government of Nunavut departments and interpret the FAM.
Of course, we have been talking about FAM, the Financial Administration Manual. We’re actively engaged in strengthening financial management through the funding that the federal government gave us. We have a very good working relationship with the Office of the Auditor General of Canada that helps us with advice and direction.
You have to remember though that Nunavut is only a bit over 11 years old.
I’m not trying to make excuses, but we have been rapidly expanding.
I said earlier that we have more than doubled our budget in 11 years. We have 25 communities and it’s very difficult in Nunavut to deliver all of the programs and services that you wish.
It’s very difficult to attract and retain skilled and qualified employees to work in some of our departments.
Some of the people that we have to hire require very specific skill sets.
If we don’t have those people in Nunavut, then we have to try and recruit them and retain them from the south. It’s a real challenge.
It’s not only the Government of Nunavut that faces these kinds of challenges.
I was the Mayor of Cambridge Bay for several years and we were facing it at that level. I worked in the land claims and we had difficulties there. I talked to many colleagues and friends in the private sector and they’re struggling as well in finding all of the skilled people and skill sets that they need to run their businesses.
It’s very difficult to run public sector and private sector organizations in Nunavut. We’re in a unique part of Canada.
Until we get to a certain stage in our maturity, we’re going to have these situations where it becomes an issue that we have to deal with. I didn’t expect it, but once it’s on you, you have to deal with it and then you have to learn from it.
I hope that through this whole exercise, we will be going through that and we will be better prepared in the future to deliver housing programs and other programs and avoid these kinds of situations. It’s painful, it causes setbacks, and it puts a lot of stress and strain on officials and politicians who are charged with the oversight and properly managing public monies.
So I can’t guarantee, Mr. Elliott or anyone, that there won’t be issues in the future, but I can guarantee him that we’re learning from this. From what we learn, we will be better able to manage the public monies in the future.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I voted no to the $2,692,000 reduction of the Department of Education.
First of all, the Pond Inlet residents are afraid that there will be too many kindergarten students enrolled for the next year. The kindergarten students are going to have only one teacher based on the student-teacher ratio.
Although they ought to have two teachers, there is no funding for the extra teaching position.
Will these reductions have an impact on the number of teachers?
Will it have an impact on the teaching positions from kindergarten?
The number of kindergarten students enrolled is increasing every year.
I believe that 58 kindergarten students will be with one teacher. This is unacceptable.
Will this $2.6 million cutback have a negative impact on these teachers?
It’s a question that I will have to defer to my colleague, Minister Tapardjuk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It won’t have a negative impact on the programs and services that we provide, like for teachers and the students. It’s not going to have an impact on government services since we require teachers and we need school services. It won’t have an impact on these programs, which will continue.
The most impacted area will be on travel and transportation.
We can reduce our expenditures on school materials and contract services.
I can tell him, Mr. Chairman, that all legislated requirements under the Education Act will not be impacted. The teachers and students will not be affected, Mr. Chairman.
I’m a bit confused as to what it is we are reviewing. We have already agreed to some of the departments and yet, we’re still asking questions to the departments that were already passed. I would like us to proceed.
Chairman: Thank you. I agree.
Schedule 1. Operations and Maintenance. Operations and Maintenance Appropriation. -$16 million.
Chairman: We will go to Bill 31 in your white legislation binder.
Bill 31, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2010-2011.
Let’s go to Schedule on page 3.
Schedule. Vote 1: Operations and Maintenance. Total Operations and Maintenance. -$16 million.
Chairman: Total Supplementary Appropriation. -$16 million.
Chairman: Go back to clause 4. Clause 4. Agreed?
Chairman: Are you agreed to Bill 31 as a whole?
Chairman: Pursuant to Rule 63(2), are members agreed that Bill 31 can immediately be placed on the orders of the day for third reading?
Chairman: Does Minister Peterson have any closing remarks?
I thank the MLAs for asking a lot of good questions on the deficit reduction bill.
I can’t really add any more to what I had already said. We have learned from this entire exercise.
I assure the members that we take all of their comments and concerns very seriously and we appreciate the oversight and scrutiny.
If there are ever any questions or comments, or a requirement to find out information, my office is always open or emails. I know I get a lot of emails from some members and phone calls.
I think that it is important that we all understand how budgets and finance work in the Government of Nunavut. It’s important that we all work together. This is a consensus government, but it is important that we all have awareness and knowledge of how public monies are utilized because it is for the good of all of our people in the communities that we represent in Nunavut.
So I appreciate the members’ questions and oversight, and I look forward to questions on the next bill.
We appreciate you coming in and answering some of these tough questions here.
Will the Sergeant-at-Arms escort the minister and his officials out, please.
We will take a five-minute break and then we will go to Bill 29.
>>Committee recessed at 17:04 and resumed at 17:14
Bill 29 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2010-2011 – Consideration in Committee
Chairman (Mr. Ningeongan): Thank you.
I would now like to ask Minister Peterson of the Department of Finance to make his opening remarks on Bill 29.
I am pleased to appear before you to present Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2010-2011.
As you are aware, two of the financial measures in front of you today are to implement the government’s fiscal action plan to address the shortfall in the Nunavut Housing Trust program.
This capital supplementary appropriation bill transfers funding from five projects across four departments to the Nunavut Housing Corporation for the Nunavut Housing Trust program.
Projects from two departments amounting to $15 million that are carryover funds from 2009-2010 are included in Bill 28, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2010-2011.
Use of these funds is contingent on the passing of Bill 28.
These funds were identified as not being required in 2010-11 and as such, would have become capital carryovers to 2011-12 if they had not been used as part of this reallocation:
From the Department of Community and Government Services, $6.5 million will be transferred from the Kugluktuk Water Treatment Facility; and
From the Department of Health and Social Services, $8.5 million will be transferred from two Qikiqtani General Hospital projects - $2.5 million for furniture, fixtures, and equipment and $6 million for renovations.
Funds that were approved in the 2010-11 capital estimates and are now being deferred come from the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth.
The department is transferring $7.0 million from the heritage centre project.
An amount of $2.7 million from the 2009-2010 capital carryovers will be retained to allow for continued planning of this project.
Mr. Chairman, these capital projects are still in the capital plan and the government has every intention of reinstating the necessary funds to move these projects forward next year.
In fact, these capital projects already have the associated funding in the draft 2011-12 capital plan that the government is currently developing.
In addition, the Department of Economic Development and Transportation has identified $800,000 targeted for small craft harbours that will be transferred to the Nunavut Housing Trust program.
We will now proceed to the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting with page 4.
Capital. Not Previously Authorized. Culture and Heritage.
In regard to the heritage centre, it seems that it was the first item cut and it seems that this project funding is just an insurance item that is cut every time we have a budget shortfall. This is not the first time that there has been something taken away from the heritage centre.
Again we see that there is a major cut enacted.
Although it states that some funding will be reallocated next year, this centre is important to our future and we ought to keep it.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Okalik. (interpretation ends) Minister Peterson, if you want to comment on that.
We know that the Nunavut Heritage Centre project is an important project.
I believe that the Second Assembly introduced it.
It has a special significance for Nunavut and I believe it’s a requirement under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
However, it’s a very expensive project and a lot of planning and design has to go into it, plus there has to be funding from other sources identified. We are leaving $2.7 million in the project to continue with the planning and design, but I believe that we will have to continue to do a lot of work to identify other funding sources to continue with this project.
I know that Minister Tapardjuk and his officials are doing a lot of work in that regard.
If Minister Tapardjuk wants to add some additional comments, I would invite him to do that.
What my colleague just stated is true.
The government has been using the heritage centre funding. Again, I guess we will have to start charging them interest in order to accumulate some funds.
Just for clarity, we are working very hard and there was a surplus in the plans.
We have to understand that if we are going to get the heritage centre up and running, we will require $65 million. The initial amount was at $55 million, but this will have to be separated into two phases and we are working hard at trying to make it a reality.
Again, it is obvious that it is identified this year, but it would only be superficial. As long as they leave us enough funds to plan for the heritage centre, we hope to start working on it earnestly next year.
When we are seeking approval for funds next year, we would like to get this project underway.
I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that when we are looking at where we can get third party funds from outside sources, those could be acquired.
Definitely, the money will have to be returned for this project and I know that it is going to be a lot more expensive, but it is going to be beneficial to the people of Nunavut once the heritage centre goes up.
That’s the response I can give at this time, Mr. Chairman.
In the second last paragraph of the opening comments, there is $800,000 identified that was to be targeted for small craft harbours that will be transferred to the Nunavut Housing Trust program.
Looking at the capital carryovers for 2010-11 or 2009-2010, it looks like you are going to be cutting back more than a year’s worth.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Arvaluk, we had finished with the opening comments and we had moved on to page 4.
I see that he has cut himself off and I’ll accept that.
Thank you for the answers from Minister Tapardjuk.
According to the government’s 2007-08 annual report on departmental procurement, the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth paid $220,000 to an Iqaluit based consulting firm for a Nunavut Heritage Centre Capital Fundraising Campaign.
What work was performed for this amount of money and how much capital funding did this consulting company’s work result in being obtained?
I will have to ask my colleague, Minister Tapardjuk, to respond to that question.
The government has been working with the Nunavut Heritage Trust and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated on the heritage centre for several years.
They had a fundraising campaign and outlined how they were going to proceed with it.
The way we were going to progress was we contracted a working group to do a fundraising campaign because we had to raise a lot of money.
They identified some options on how we can access funds.
However, we came across a problem as the Nunavut government that we have not identified funds. As my colleague stated, this is not the first time that it has been approved and used for other purposes.
The government did not come to an agreement or identify some money, so it was hard to access funds from governments without this government making a contribution.