Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Committee, we will proceed with the first item. We will resume our consideration from where we were when we reported progress yesterday.
Minister of Finance, does the Minister of Finance wish to bring witnesses into the chamber?
Yes, please, Madam Chair.
Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. Would the Sergeant-at-Arms please escort the witnesses into the chamber. Committee, please turn to page 3 with the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. We were considering the first activity in the department when we reported progress yesterday, so I'll call that activity again.
Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2025-2026, Department of Education, Culture and Employment, education, not previously authorized, $15,697,000. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2025-2026, Department of Education, Culture and Employment, languages and culture, not previously authorized, $110,000. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2025-2026, Department of Education, Culture and Employment, total department not previously authorized, $15,807,000. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Committee, we will now consider the Department of Environment and Climate Change on page 4.
Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2025-2026, Department of Environment and Climate Change, environmental management, monitoring and climate change, not previously authorized, $363,000. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2025-2026, Department of Environment and Climate Change, policy and strategic plan, not previously authorized, $5,425,000. Does the committee agree?
Agreed.
Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2025-2026, Department of Environment and Climate Change, wildlife and forest management, not previously authorized, $41,059,000. Mr. Morse.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, just noting the shortfall in fire suppression activities. I guess the question I would ask, and I have some comments about it, is just the idea that this was a shortfall, and this wasn't predictable. I think that we are beyond the point where additional resources towards wildfire management are any kind of a surprise or outside of what's normal. It's been a couple of seasons, and I think that this is ongoing, and we just simply need to be budgeting for these activities considering that we're going to be seeing increased wildfire activity for the foreseeable future. Could change, and we could end up having to reduce the budget over time. But I guess I would just ask what's the justification for coming to the Assembly for a supp related to something like this? Because, I mean, I think that the department had staffed up and gotten more equipment in place and everything that they needed to respond to wildfire appropriately in anticipation of the fire season, so that tells me it was something that could have been budgeted for. So could the Minister help us understand why this is being done through a supplementary estimate as opposed to simply budgeting? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the amount available to ECC in terms of wildfire suppression has grown in its base budget. So the base budget in the main -- which is what's in the main estimates that we see in the winter session, from 2022-2023 was $18.7 million; 2023-2024 almost $21 million; and 2024-2025, $24.3 million. Then on top of which we have the supplementary appropriations in each of those years. But my point simply being that there have been adjustments over the years as well as some support that's come in through Enercan over that period of time. But at the end of the day, the actual amounts each year was then different at the end of the actuals that we saw. Actuals in 2022-2023 were only just shy of $25 million, then it jumps to $127 million, but then it goes back down to $61 million. If we over budget, then what we're doing is creating a situation where the budget has an appropriation in it that may lead to inaccuracy in the wrong direction. Obviously if we under budget, then we come back to the Assembly for supplementary appropriation, but we'd be coming back for supplementary appropriation with a more specific and exact number knowing what the costs were over the course of the year. So the base budget does need to be one that allows the department to, as the Member pointed out, staff up, enter into contracts, and so on. And then, you know, obviously, by -- you know, if, for example, in the 2023-2024 wildfire season when things -- which was, you know, obviously quite record-breaking -- we wound up in a situation of having to come back in the fall but -- or early, but it may well be that most -- in most cases, we can come back with a sense of the actuals during this setting, and then we are approving a budget based on what may or may not be happening in any particular given year. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member from Frame Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And that all sounds quite practical and makes sense to me. I guess one of the questions I would ask, I mean, it seems like our need for added capacity for fire management is growing. What are we doing to, you know, look at our base amount of funding that we get from the federal government and whether that is adequate to cover this cost? I guess I would just say it seems like we're playing catch-up on every given year. And, you know, it's very clear what the territory is facing. You know, I just saw a report come out recently showing that effectively the prediction and the modeling is starting to show that the territory is going to be facing these kinds of events more regularly for the foreseeable future without change. So we have data telling us what's coming. I think we need to be preparing for it financially, and we need to be preparing for it, you know, with our human resources and with our equipment and with all our planning.
So I guess I would just ask the Minister, I mean, what kind of engagement are we having with the federal government just about the fact that, like, our current budget is very clearly not covering it and we can only do so many supps, we can only go into so much debt. So what are we doing to address this growing need and this new reality that we're facing? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I mean, this is a very large question. I'm probably beyond the scope of what I can really get into here and one that should probably go as well to both ECC as well as MACA directly in terms of their operations. But just briefly, Madam Chair, and from the perspective of the Department of Finance, we are responsible for territorial formula financing. That is -- a review is getting underway now in advance of 2029 being the next time that it comes up for renewal. The challenge that we will have is that it doesn't take much in terms of headlines in the news throughout the summer to see that the challenges that we are facing are indeed being faced by jurisdictions across all of Canada. And, in fact, this year, while we certainly had some communities that were particularly affected, there were arguably some of the worst years on record in some of our other provinces across the country. So being able to parse out and say that our situation is unique or different in this particular respect, it may be difficult, but it may be that some years it is. And that's where we come back to supplementary appropriation funding. In some ways, this for a long time was the example that was used as what is a supp and why do we need a supp and when do we need a supp, and the response would be, well, for example, with wildfires, because we never really know just how bad a particular year may be. So, again, like I said, we certainly want to take into account as part of our FP -- or FTFF review, whether or not our base funding could be adjusted, whether this is an area where we are uniquely underfunded. But beyond that, there would be, I think, Madam Chair, an opportunity for the Ministers responsible with both, as I say, community response, community emergency, and environment and climate change, to be engaging with their federal Ministers, and I am confident that they will. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.
Sorry, I'm done.
Next, I have Member for Range Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Similar to my colleague's comments on this line, will the -- it wasn't clear on the last answer. But will the base budget, then, for fire suppression be revised upwards in the main estimates -- in the next main estimates? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I don't have the main estimates in front of me right now. And in general, we don't speak to them before they get tabled here in the House. Members do have an opportunity to review the main estimates in advance. And so I think I'll have to defer that question too when we're up in front of the committee at the very least, if not back before the House, on the mains. Thank you.
Member for Range Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, sorry, and I'm not trying to jump the procedural queue on these things. I guess what I was getting at more so is are we budgeting -- is the base budget being calculated on previous fire seasons? And is that -- yeah, let's ask that. So is it like, depending -- so we spent $39 million more next year, so next year are they going to take that into calculation and bring back a forthcoming budget that looks closer to what we paid this year with hopes of going -- I understand that, like, we don't want to over budget for things but given that we have multiple reports along the lines that this is going up, it seems prudent to move in that direction. And I think fundamental to this point is what we spend in our operations budget affects our capital budgets as well, which the Minister is well aware of. So this is not just kind of a can we get it right, you know, let's be flexible. Like, what we commit to in the main estimates is very important for our financial procedures in this House. So $39 million is a significant number with respect to that, because it means it could mean greater borrowing, which carries interests, etcetera, etcetera. So I think the Minister understands where I'm coming from on this, and I want to make -- I just want to make sure that we know how much we're working with for future capital expenditures based on the operational surplus. Thank you.
Thank you, Member. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I certainly take the point. I mean, so as much as I'm saying that the wildfires are a good example for what is an appropriate supplementary appropriation, there is also -- I don't disagree that having an accurate budget when we can see a trend is certainly a responsibility that we do want to take seriously. For instance, if there are items that have a commitment by ECC, so for example if there are contracts they've entered into with their airline suppliers and tankers or -- you know, then that would be an item that would be potentially appropriate for a forced growth submission. Or, for example, if there's positions that get put in, whether, you know, for additional personnel, because there's a noted consistent absence or a consistent, you know, lack of, then that too could be -- if there's positions that get put in, that could properly come through. So those are examples of areas where if there's a consistent trend of particular areas that there's a need, then that may well be appropriate for either forced growth or if it's new personnel for an initiative. But that does need to come through the business planning process, which does happen here. So just acknowledging that and giving those examples, it could be something that it would be a supp one year and could find themselves into the business planning process, or it could be that, you know, the department only can say that an event was such an extreme year or the circumstances were particularly unique, and that may not be one that would be appropriate. So, yeah, appreciate the opportunity to perhaps give a bit of background on how those processes work. Thank you.
Thank you. Member for Range Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the Minister for that. So I mean, I don't have the benefit of the substantiations here but neither does the public, I think, at any time. So for this $39.5 million, can the Minister speak to the nature of the funding? Like, is the -- she listed a number of items there that might impact future expenditures, multi-year contracts or contracts related to fire suppression. So what does this $39 million represent in terms of fire suppression activities? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So this particular line item in the mains for 2025-2026 was just over $20.9 million. But, in fact, actuals are coming in at $41,929. And so some of the items that we are seeing that are contributing to that, sort of highlights if you will, aircraft in particular. Aircraft is $10.5 million and likely a little bit more, $3 million -- there's some projected costs at this point in time. So because of the timing of the year, there's still some costs that are coming in from the tail end of the season. But expecting this one to hit $13.5 million. And associated fuel for the aircraft suppression work, $3.88 million. Another significant area would be the land-based tankers and land-based equipment that is used at just shy of $7 million. And then beyond that, there's some overtime costs associated, obviously, given the nature of an emergency. And under aircraft contracts, the skimmer aircraft. So different from the air tankers. That's at $7.3 million. So those would be the sort of top items, if you will, Madam Chair.
There's also some costs associated for contract firefighters, cost sharing agreements with other jurisdictions, and rental of some equipment. So for use -- retardant would be another one for example. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Range Lake.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have nothing further on this only to say that, again, I think it's important we get budgets as accurate or estimates documents as accurate as possible because of the nature of our fiscal responsibility policy and how it impacts our available capital. So that's why, perhaps, in other governments you would see less -- I mean, less questioning around some of these numbers and how they come to the House because they operate differently. But in this case, every time we are -- we have a revised surplus, it means debt. And we saw how quickly our debt hit the limit until we recently increased it. So my message I guess to the ministry is just please do your best on estimates documents so we are clear on what we can anticipate spending so we're not relying on short-term borrowing as much as possible. Thank you. Nothing further.
Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, I would just say, again, I appreciate the comments and the discussion and the opportunity to kind of explain these different processes. I would make, I guess, one last remark which is the other -- another solution is to look at the amount we have in the supplementary reserve. So that is sort of the amount that's set aside to draw from supps. And I guess still the same tension of not wanting to have too much built in there but at least that gives us some planning if you will, the planning runway of how much we expect that we may need for any one of a number of emergencies not necessarily knowing exactly which one or exactly what the costs might be. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2025-2026, Department of Environment and Climate Change, wildlife and forest management, not previously authorized, $41,059,000. Does the committee agree? Member from Monfwi.
Well, I am surprised because, you know, since forest fire 2023 and with the climate change -- hot, dry summer -- that, you know, even my colleague said that it's within the data. It should have been a warning sign for the department and yet we didn't do enough to allocate funds in the forest fire management because we're -- it's money that's already spent.
I know this goes back to forest fire management policy, and we've said it many times -- I've said it many times too before, that, you know, if we had put out the fire -- not just me, but there's a lot of other people are saying, you know, that if forest fire was fought or was put out soon as it starts, I think we could have saved some but now because we let it burn out of control, now we're spending $39 million. So I want to ask the Minister -- I know that it's -- it all goes back to the policy, forest fire management policy that they let go of -- the let it burn policy, then I think we can save -- you know, save money and save our land too. Not only that, it's a migrating route, the one that we're talking about, it's a woodland caribou area.
So with that in mind, I just want to ask the Minister where is this $39 million going to be coming from? And I think I heard her say reserve. But, you know, like, is there additional money that's available to help us? Because $39 million is a lot of money for us, especially in the small communities where we have issues with housing. We have housing crisis in the Delta and in Tlicho region and that $39 million could have helped us build houses to alleviate homelessness. So I just wanted to -- that's my question to the Minister.
Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, firstly, just -- I mean, just briefly, there is not a let it burn policy at all. But as to the sort of nuance of the specifics of fire management or forest fire management, that certainly is well beyond my capacity in the supps to speak to. I certainly do want to, you know, listen carefully when the Minister from ECC speaks and they, you know, already do action quite a number of fires but there's quite a number that they do monitor. And that -- because they simply are trying to manage both proper forest management as well as ensuring that they're putting resources towards where there are potential losses. So on the other side of that, Madam Chair, with respect to the $39 million, I mean, it's a lot of money for this government, period, and so certainly don't take that at all. I do appreciate the comments as to all the many things that can be done with it, which is true of -- really means part of the challenge that we find ourselves in generally when we are a small government with limited resources and yet a large jurisdiction and a large geography with a lot of needs during an emergency. There is -- we do build in a supplementary reserve, and what that is, is in the main estimates it's an amount that sort of, you know, creates the cushion where we're trying to figure out how much of a surplus we would have to pay for infrastructure without taking on debt. We build in some amount knowing that there will be needs and asks and then can plan for it. So we had $35 million in this year's supplementary reserve. Obviously, this item alone takes that up. So beyond that, once we've gone down on the supplementary -- or I'm sorry, on the forecasted surplus or in order to pay for infrastructure, that turns into debt. So in this case, to the extent that we would require additional funding to pay for the capital plan and it's not available through the operating surplus, it will come in under debt. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Monfwi.
Thank you. Yeah, the Minister said monitor. You know, I mean, I guess what the department is doing is that they watch, you know, the fire burn, burn our land and animals that we survive and, you know, the animals that we rely on, because especially the woodland caribou in our area. And it's not just us. It's across the NWT. So the monitor, it doesn't sit well with me, you know, because like I said, it's all -- it's all related to the forest fire management policy. If the policy is changed to fight the fire as soon as it starts before it gets out of control, I know that we will not only save money but we will also, you know, save our land, save the animals, you know. And that's our culture. We've said it many times. Our culture and language is connected to the land. So the monitor doesn't sit well with me. I think we need to be more active in this area.
And I see in the budget here, it says here barren-ground caribou conservation in the NWT, 1.4, Peary caribou movement and habitat use. So I just wanted to ask the Minister, now since that we rely on -- because it's still within the same topic, you know, within where, you know, like, Fort Providence and Whati. It's on the Highway No. 3 our woodland caribou that goes as far as northern Alberta. So I want to ask why we're not doing enough for our woodland caribou conservation and the habitat use as well. If they're doing that, why not put -- identify those two as well in here? Because this year alone, a lot of our caribou, the migrating route was disrupted and their land where -- you know, their migrating route was disrupted. Not only that, their food. So I just want to know if they're -- in the future, if woodland caribou will also be part of this, which is they were also affected by the forest fire, not just on the barren-ground caribou conservation, woodland is also -- the people -- the Tlicho people also rely on woodland caribou as well. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, just to reassure the Members, so the two items here related to the barren-ground caribou and the Peary caribou are -- the supplementary appropriations are only for additional money that is coming from ECCC, which is Environment and Climate Change Canada. There are some new funding opportunities or renewed funding opportunities with the federal government in that these supplementary appropriations bring that money in and make it available to ECC here, but it is not the sum total of all the work that ECC does in the space of wildlife management. Thank you, Madam Chair.
