Mahsi, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Lafferty. What we heard - committee's general comments to the report, Mr. Speaker.
What We Heard - General Comments
The focus of our second annual pre-budget consultations was the cost of living. The high cost of living was one of the concerns we heard about the most during our 2005 hearings. It includes the cost of essentials such as housing, food, childcare, electricity, and fuel.
The GNWT already spends about $128 million, or roughly 13 percent of its total budget, on subsidies to help reduce the cost of living, including public housing, income assistance, and fuel and power subsidies. The GNWT has said that while subsidies may be a necessary interim measure to manage the cost of living, they will not be sustainable in the long run and do not encourage the efficient use of resources.
The GNWT has suggested that longer-term solutions are reducing energy, utility, transportation and communication costs; increasing market development and competition; increasing employment and income levels; and reducing government program costs.
To get the discussion started, Mr. Speaker, we asked people the following questions:
- • What are people in your community doing to lower their own energy and utility costs by conserving? What would help them use less fuel and power? Have they heard about the Arctic Energy Alliance and its programs?
- • Do you support government investment in more highways and bridges, hydroelectric projects and high speed Internet to lower costs?
- • Would people in your community be willing to harvest or grow more of their own food, and, if so, what government support would help?
- • What businesses are available in your community? What, if anything, should the government do to help start up local businesses and/or cooperatives? Are the business development programs the government has now working? Why or why not?
- • What could the government do to lower its own costs?
The committee agrees that simply continuing to expand subsidies is not a sustainable way of helping people to manage the cost of living. We are also aware that until the government is able to secure a fair funding arrangement with Ottawa and establish new revenue sources, its ability to increase overall spending will be severely limited.
During our consultations, Mr. Speaker, we did hear many requests for more program dollars. However, we also heard ideas that would not necessarily require more spending by the GNWT, but that might, for example, require the GNWT to play a coordinating or lobbying role on behalf of residents and communities. People also brought forward several suggestions for modest strategic investments that would help people to help themselves and pay off in the medium to long term. The committee believes it should be possible to follow up on at least some of these ideas within the current fiscal climate.
Mr. Speaker, the committee also heard that the government can free up more program money and make better use of the resources it has by looking for savings and efficiencies in its own administration and by ensuring that the programs and subsidies we do have are fair and
are getting to the right people. The committee is especially concerned that the GNWT is failing some of our small communities, Mr. Speaker, by not ensuring that critical programs are delivered as intended to the people who need them most.
Although the cost of living was the primary focus of the 2006 consultations, the committee also heard from people on a number of other issues, many of which were also raised in 2005. In particular, front-line organizations told us they continue to have serious concerns with their funding arrangements and relationships with the GNWT. Other topics of discussion included health, family violence, education, and economic development. These issues are outlined in a later section of this report.