Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank the committee for the extensive work they did in reviewing these two pieces of legislation. I know that countless hours of work, public community consultation were involved and I think that, coupled with the profile that these proposed pieces of legislation had in the media and the minds of the public, it was important to do a very thorough and good job on this. I believe they have done so and I want to thank my colleagues for all of the work they have put in.
I would also like to acknowledge that the government, I do agree, has heard from Members of this House continually that we need to do something to fix the state of our highways.
Mr. Chairman, while I do applaud them for coming forward with a proposal that would address these concerns, I think they have heard loud and clear from the public, and I am quoting from the committee's report: "All presenters agreed that roads need improvement, but this strategy is the wrong way to do it." I would concur with that assessment, Mr. Chairman. I think there are various problems that have been raised and the committee has hit on all of them. I just want to key on a few of the ones that I specifically have had difficulty with and have been raised continually by my constituents when they were talking to me about the proposed pieces of legislation.
One of the key things that I heard in talking to my constituents was the need for transparency and predictability. I believe in the letter submitted to committee from RTL Robinson, the point was made that a cost of a 15 pound bag of potatoes could vary, depending on several factors to be taken into account by the time it got to its destination, wherever that would be within the Northwest Territories. That should not be the case. When we are talking about transparency, Mr. Chairman, the cost of potatoes should not go up because the configuration of a truck was different from week to week and it should not depend on whether or not the truck was full, not full or half full.
I think a lot of these trucking companies now, as was clearly presented to committee, do not wait for a truck to be full before coming up. They are on a schedule. They leave whether the trucks are full or not because a lot of these goods are time-sensitive, Mr. Chairman. I think the government failed to address these concerns with any viable alternative.
Consumers need to see -- and I know I have heard the Minister of Transportation say that they were not concerned about the consumers in this respect because there are other things that consumers cannot be assured of --, but consumers need to see a line item on a waybill when they have freight shipped to them that clearly indicates what the toll amounted is for the goods they received and had shipped. This has to be able to be reconciled with the legislation. I do not think consumers are willing to take the word of an outside agency administering this toll and do not want to have to call trucking companies and ask what the configuration of a truck was and get into disputes over these kinds of things. I think transparency and predictability were never sufficiently addressed in my mind and indeed in the minds of many of my constituents.
The cost of living increase is another point that came across loud and clear. I think the problem here was, and probably even the government may or may not, but I would hope they would acknowledge that they should have looked a little more thoroughly at exactly what the impact might be to northern households. It is one thing to say that we cannot tell, for instance, what the spending patterns for every individual household are. We can only take averages so we cannot give you anything written in stone as to what the impact might be per family, but I think that would be one extreme.
I think what they did was the other extreme. If I look in the report, some research conducted by Ellis Consulting for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines indicated that when the government was looking at the cost to the typical family in the Northwest Territories, the data they analyzed and provided only looked at the impact on groceries, heating fuel and motor fuel for a family. According to Stats Canada, that is only 20 percent of 1998 Northwest Territories household expenditures.
Although we cannot tell what every individual family will purchase in regard to cars, building materials, air tickets, these kinds of things, I think that Northwest Territories households would obviously be impacted. Eighty percent of goods and services to be purchased by households were excluded. I think a lot more work at the front end should have been done by our government in analyzing the true cost to northern residents.
Mr. Handley has indicated that he is disappointed that the committee did not come forward with any other options or proposed suggestions as to how this could be retooled and would receive support. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe that is the Minister's job. We sit here and analyze the proposed legislation. It is not for us to go outside the scope of that bill and take other alternatives and take those and shop those around to the public. That is for the Minister to do.
I had a deja vu experience as he was reading his notes and suggested he was disappointed because I remember exactly the same comments with regard to the hotel tax. I had the same feeling at that time, that it is not for this committee to now propose alternatives to a hotel tax or to this legislation and then go out and shop those around to the public. It is for the government with all of its resources and staff and departments and expertise to roll those out to the public and see what the response is.
Still on cost of living increase, the Minister does have at his disposal several tools which could offset the increase in the cost of living. He has already taken some steps in this Assembly. He has raised the northern tax credit to an additional maximum of $177 per tax filer. That would be for folks at the high end. Others would receive less. I will give him credit for that. I think that was certainly a needed adjustment, but many have argued that we were due for an adjustment in this area. I think the last time it was looked at was 1993 and certainly this adjustment was justified with or without the proposed change to legislation.
He does have other tools available to him, Mr. Chairman, certainly taxation policy. He established a tax on income committee and they will come forward with recommendations to the Minister. He will present his thoughts to us. I hope he seriously considers aggressively lowering taxes. This is one thing he can do to address the cost of living increase. Of course, there is a cost to that to this government and the cost to that does affect programs and services. I think we all acknowledge that, but I think it is a discussion we need to sit down and have.
He also talked about possible sunsetting and analyzing the true impact after a certain period of time. Those are good suggestions as well, but unfortunately, they are too little, too late. I think it still does not address the issue of transparency and predictability. I have no way to present my case after a year of the toll to the Minister as to what the true impact to my household has been. I will not see when I go to Wal-Mart or will not see when I go to the grocery store exactly what the impact was on certain goods that I am purchasing, especially this 80 percent of goods that the government has neglected to analyze in their numbers.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank the committee for all their work, but I want to reiterate one main point before I leave this issue and that is clearly I think we all recognize, and I think the public should recognize, that these proposed pieces of legislation are a plan B. We are sitting here and even discussing and debating this issue because, as the Minister has suggested, it would be irresponsible to borrow money without some way to raise revenue.
The reason he has had to come forward with these new proposed revenue-raising initiatives is because our Non-Renewable Resource Strategy has been a dismal failure. I believe the Premier talked about getting a down payment on the Non-Renewable Resource Strategy almost two years ago. This is a strategy of many, many millions -- hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Chairman. Our down payment was something like $3 million to do some work on some roads and bridges. It is hardly a down payment. I think if the federal government is going to continue to ignore us and continue to refuse to help us in this area, there is only so much that we can go to our residents for, to ask them to shoulder the costs of these needed infrastructure investments. It is not feasible to think that 40,000 people can pay for all these highways and for all these needed upgrades.
I hope that we all continue to remember and recognize that this is really a plan B because we have had an absolute failure at getting any money for our Non-Renewable Resource Strategy.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the committee for all its work and again thank the government for coming forward with initiatives; but they are, as we all realize, going to have to come back with something better. Thank you.