Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Deficit Elimination Act is to avoid a large government deficit and require that any deficit that is incurred in one year be offset by an equivalent surplus in the following year.

Mr. Chairman, the government's limited tax revenue and our primary dependence on federal funding do not enable the territories to service debt to the same extent as other jurisdictions. As a result, debt, Mr. Chairman, must be avoided at all costs. The act in its current form has been jointly developed by the government and the Standing Committee on Finance. It contains, Mr. Chairman, challenging fiscal provisions and substantive measures to hold the government accountable.

I will try to answer any questions that Members may have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you. On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance, which reviewed the particular bill, Mr. Antoine, do you have opening remarks?

Standing Committee On Finance Comments

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is a little confusion here about the procedures. I'm not an expert on the procedures of the House, so I just needed a little bit of help here. Regarding Bill 30, Deficit Elimination Act, Mr. Chairman, we gave a report on it yesterday. I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for working with the Standing Committee on Finance to come to a consensus on that. The committee is now prepared to support this bill with the amendments we have recommended to the Minister. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any general comments on Bill 30 from the committee?

Clause by clause.

Clause By Clause

Okay, I hear a request to go clause by clause. Bill 30, Deficit Elimination Act. Clause 1.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Clause 2 of Bill 30.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Clause 3. Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a few comments, for the record, about this particular bill because I have some concerns. As you know, I am a Member of the Standing Committee on Finance, to which I was appointed recently. I wasn't a participant right from the beginning on this particular bill; it was recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance to the government when I was a Cabinet Member.

The problem I have with it concerns the area of the bill where the Cabinet is the only body that will be accountable should we have a deficit by 1997-98. Mr. Chairman, from my understanding of consensus government, which our government is -- a one-party system -- it is important to me that this be recorded. I think it would be fair that all 24 Members should be accountable, should we have a deficit by the year 1997-98. I say this because in our system we have standing committees that fully participate in government operations and make recommendations to the government that might result in incurring additional expenditures of this particular government. With the practice we have been carrying out, all 24 Members have selected the Cabinet. To hold only eight out of 24 accountable is not responsible, in my eyes.

As I stated previously, the standing committees of Finance or Legislation recommendations can result in additional expenditures of the government. For these reasons, I wanted to make this comment on the record, Mr. Chairman. Although I do support the principle of the bill, I have some concerns, especially in the area where only Cabinet Members will be held accountable should we have a deficit situation by the year 1997-98. I think it should be all 24 Members. Rightly so, it should be 24, Mr. Chairman, because here we are, we're still sitting at the end of April. We were supposed to finish by April 13th. We're still incurring additional costs. The longer we sit here the more money we're spending. These are the concerns I have that I wanted to say to this House. Thank you.

Thank you. Although the comment made by Ms. Mike on accountability is not directly in clause 3, I will allow the question in this case because it's indirectly part of the bill. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since Ms. Mike has raised the question, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether there are provisions in this bill, or there are provisions that he will propose in this bill, which will make it clear that the responsibility for elimination of the deficit is that of the Legislative Assembly as well as that of the Cabinet itself. Is there a way that question can be dealt with and recognized in this bill? Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, not specifically in the bill, but my understanding is that after clause 6, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance will ask for unanimous consent to ask for some whereases to the bill, and perhaps those whereases will address that particular issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Clause 3. Mr. Koe.

In clause 3, it talks about some restriction in clause 3(3), saying there may not be a deficit in the 1998-99 fiscal year. During the past five years we have been accumulating debt and accumulating a deficit. We've incurred, I believe, over $150 million of debt in the last four or five years. Next year, we're projecting another $50 million plus. How does this bill account for accumulated deficits, accumulated debt?

Thank you. Honourable Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the act comes into force April 1, 1996 so it does not deal with any accumulated debt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Clause 3. Honourable Member for Inuvik.

Is the honourable Minister of Finance saying that effective April 1, 1996 this government shall be debt free?

Honourable Minister of Finance.

Mr. Chairman, that would be my hope. I realize what Mr. Koe is saying, that we are facing some very tough times. It has been talked about that there may have to be $100 million cut. Probably those numbers being thrown around are alarming people, but let's just say if it's even $60 million, it's still a lot of money. I would think that at that time when that issue is addressed, the accumulated debt should be addressed at that time as well. I would hope that the next government would be able to put in place a budget that obeys this act and, at the same time, addresses the accumulated debt of that particular time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Clause 3. The honourable Member for Inuvik.

That's my concern. What happens if it doesn't? What happens come April 1, 1996? There is an election in the fall, there could be a new slate of officers coming into a government that has an accumulated debt. Decisions are made all the time that impact ongoing years in terms of contracts, commitments and what not. A lot of the people -- and Ms. Mike referred to it -- are impacted by no design of their own, it's just a timing thing. I'm just wondering how this was accounted for in this bill. We're putting the onus on the Ministers, and rightly so because they're in the inner circle; they make the big decisions and get paid the big dollars. But all 24 Members are involved in approving the budget. So it's ludicrous to say we're going to fire all 24 Members because they incurred a deficit. I'm just making a point to support what Becky had said.

I'm just wondering how this was delivered in this bill and whether or not the amendments are going to address this.

Thank you. On the accountability, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think the purpose of the bill and the consultations with the government and Standing Committee on Finance was not to allow deficits to keep climbing and climbing and climbing. I think what we're looking at right now: if there is an accumulated deficit, a debt at the time of division, then that debt would be divided up along with the assets of the Northwest Territories. That's the way that would be dealt with. But the purpose was not to allow that to grow any larger than it is at the present time, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to accountability, I think the government does recognize that we are accountable to this Legislative Assembly, but at the same time we also recognize that we're a minority government.

I think Members have to realize that each time we have tried to cut and we have tried to do something serious about reducing certain areas of the budget, the first thing we know, people are on their feet saying, no, you can't do that; we don't want that to happen. So it makes it very difficult for us to make those tough decisions simply because, as I've been told many times and understand, 15 out-vote eight just about every time.

So I think there was an honest effort by the government and the Standing Committee on Finance to start to recognize that we're in this thing together and to draw our attention to this issue by saying there is a law on the books that says that we can't do this. It would work equally well for Ministers as well as Members, and there would at least be some document that you can point to and say, we're not allowed to do that; we should be acting responsibly and we shouldn't be getting ourselves into these situations.

As far as Members of the House being accountable as well, I think their accountability will be on the day they pass the budget. In other words, presumably they would not pass a budget that was outside the parameters of this particular bill, and of course, Ministers then would be accountable between sessions or between budget sessions simply because they would know that they could not go outside the parameters of this bill. They would be accountable to the Legislative Assembly at the earliest opportunity after the Speaker had received the year-end accounts.

Again, Mr. Speaker, with regard to accountability, I think the bill is fair. It recognizes that if there was a serious epidemic and the government had to spend millions of dollars on a particular issue...Let's say the city of Yellowknife was threatened by fire and we had to spend millions of dollars protecting Yellowknife, that would be seen to be something out of the norm and the Legislative Assembly would be able to recognize that and say that's an abnormal occurrence and there's not a question of confidence in the government.

So I think it's as close as we can get, although Mr. Koe is correct. It does not recognize the accumulated debt, and as I said before, I think the feeling there is if it's as small as it is right now, it would be divided up by some method at the time of division. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Because acts of God are always the exception to the rule in this case. Clause 3. Agreed?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Clause 4. Mr. Koe.

This clause, Clause 4(1), states that the Minister shall provide the interim public accounts. Is that realistic, six months after year-end? I guess it's got to be. It's going to be in law. But currently you can't do it.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Yes, we believe that's possible, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the interim public accounts will be the non-consolidated financial statements of the Government of the Northwest Territories, and we believe it is possible to lay that before the Speaker within 180 days of the end of the fiscal year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Clause 4.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Clause 5 of Bill 30. Agreed?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Qujannamiik. Yes, Mr. Koe.

Clause 5, what does that mean? Clause 4 states the Speaker shall receive the accounts and lay them before the Assembly, then the Assembly shall consider within five sitting days. Does that mean the Speaker tables them in the House or does that mean the committee has to deal with them and report them within five days? What, specifically, does that clause mean?

Thank you. Mr. Minister, I will allow you, at your discretion, if you want to assign the response to your staff. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Within 180 days, the Minister of Finance will provide to the Speaker the interim public accounts and the Speaker shall lay those accounts before the Legislative Assembly as soon as reasonably practical; and I view that in the form of tabling, Mr. Chairman. Immediately after they're tabled, they would be moved to committee of the whole and the Legislative Assembly shall then consider the interim public accounts within five sitting days.

So once they're in the House and into committee of the whole, the Legislative Assembly committee of the whole will deliberate on the public accounts within five days after they're laid before the Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Qujannamiik. Clause 5. Mr. Koe.

There is a process now, because they are interim public accounts, where they should be referred to the Public Accounts committee, wouldn't they? Wouldn't they get to deal with it, or which committee deals with it within that five days? You are putting the onus on a standing committee which has to deal with it within five days and report, and then the Assembly has to deal with it. So I am just trying to get clear in my head which committees we are talking about. Who is the onus on? Is it on the Standing Committee on Finance or the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and how does that then tie in to our current process for dealing with these reports?

I believe there are financial implications here. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This does not take away from any of the committee duties that are there at the present time. The committee I was referring to was committee of the whole; in other words, the whole of the Legislative Assembly.

The issue that they would address, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not the public accounts exceeded, or there was a deficit indicated in the public accounts that exceeded the amount of this bill. Presumably, if it was within the targets, then the committee would dispense with it immediately.

So all the committee of this Legislative Assembly, which is committee of the whole, would be dealing with is whether or not the Public Accounts indicated that there was a deficit, and if it was within the parameters of this particular bill. As far as all the other issues are concerned with the public accounts and the public accounts committee, they would still do their work in the regular manner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Clause 5. Do we agree with Clause 5?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you very much. Clause 6 of Bill 30. I have Mr. Antoine.

Mr. Chairman, if Clause 6 been agreed upon, I...Did we agree to Clause 6?

No.

Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask, if Clause 6 was agreed upon, which I assumed it was but now I am told that it wasn't yet, so perhaps I will wait until it's been agreed upon before I proceed. Thank you.

I have not ruled that Clause 6 is approved. Mr. Koe.

On the bill it lays some extreme penalties in case of incurring deficits. What happens in the reverse? What if they get surpluses? Will everybody get bonuses?

---Laughter

Thank you. Clause 6. Order, please. Order. Mr. Antoine.

Mr. Chairman, I seek unanimous consent to introduce a motion to add a preamble to Bill 30, the Deficit Elimination Act. Thank you.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Mr. Antoine, please proceed with your motion.