Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, as well, wanted to comment on the macroeconomic initiative and the perspective that I have on this particular issue and to provide that comment as well as identify some of the areas that I am assuming would be included in the final policy. In my mind, Mr. Chairman, we live in a territory that has, I don't know if it's untold billions but it's probably hundreds of billions of dollars of resources that we are setting the stage to develop. We know that in gas and oil alone, it's in the billions of dollars.
We know that we have enormous challenges as a government on the expenditure side where we are expending 60 to 65 cents of every dollar on preventable causes like personal choice issues, the drinking, the smoking, the lack of exercise and diet, yet out of our budget, consuming an enormous amount of money. We know there's a need to put a frame around all the work we are doing and we can't just look at the revenue side, we have to look at the expenditure side. Otherwise, we can never generate enough revenue, nor can any other jurisdiction in the country, to cover off the rising cost on the health care side.
We have to make that adjustment. We need to make sure we put a better frame around that. We talk about what some see as the untravelled growth in government, the need for the zero-based review that everybody is going to be looking towards in the 16th Assembly to look at where we are and are we right sized and if we are going to change the structure of government, how do we do that?
We have unprecedented demand for our resources. We know we have to do a much better job in accounting for and incorporating an environment in economic development. No macroeconomic development policy in the Northwest Territories can even think of going forward without a clear inclusion front and centre of the environment being we are a resource-based economy. The value of the land, the issues we are dealing with with climate change and water and the many transboundary issues.
If we are going to do a proper macroeconomic policy, we know we have to talk about land use planning. We have to talk about how we are going to develop our resources, how fast, where, to what extent. We have to look farther down the road than the four-year terms of government.
We have some very fundamental decisions to have that I see are intrinsic to having an effective macroeconomic policy. There is a need for us to do that. We heard talk today in the House, for example, on a human resource plan. We have to finish some of those internal workings as well. Grant Thornton, last Assembly, in their study and their report and recommendations said we should have a human resource plan in government that ties into our zero-based review. We haven't yet managed to do that, but that's a piece of looking at the zero-based review and are we right sized as a government.
In my opinion, we have to plan for the future. I know I am confident, as the Premier said he is and every Member here is. We have to be chronically optimistic that we are going to get a resource revenue sharing deal and we have to plan for the day that we are going to leave the nest, be able to stand on our own two feet and be able to decide on how we are going to develop the North. We don't want to do that from a dead stop because we weren't going to do it until we had the deal in hand. We have to look at some foresight, some planning, some long-term work that's going to put a frame around all these very complex issues.
The land use planning alone, if we look at the protracted struggle with the Dehcho indicate the kind of work we are going to have to do, though they should receive credit for breaking trail on this issue. To me, it's a fundamental piece of any kind of policy, is how we are going to look and use the land incorporating all the uses that are already there and projected uses. They are very significant when you look and overlay all the maps with the land claim areas, with the protected areas strategies, with the parks, with where the caribou winter, where all the exploration permits are. Right now, we have no real clear idea as a government how all those pieces fit together. So you can't do a macroeconomic policy unless you have that information and it's clear. Then you could have the discussion with the people of the Northwest Territories and plan for the future. Everything we do is going to be tied to the land.
Finally, the macroeconomic issue that is going to be inherent in this as well is going to be a lot of the water
-related issues; the hydro expansion, both in the Taltson and other small communities and what we are going to do with the transboundary issues, both on the development side and the environmental impact side.
So is there a need for a, if you want to call it a macroeconomic policy? I believe there is. I believe it's good, sound sense to start planning for that. We have pieces all over the place we are already working on that aren't as well coordinated as they should be, as has been pointed out time and time again in this House.
So if this is going to give us the framework to be able to link these pieces, as I think it should and I think that's the intent, then I think it's an investment worth making. That's not to say that the other things that have fallen off the table should have fallen off the table, but clearly for those of us...For myself anyway, let me rephrase that. Having been at this table now eleven and a half years planning coordinated, comprehensive planning by government has been seen as something as an oxymoron at times. It's something that we have to recognize and I think we have to do a better job. I think this is a vehicle to help us do that.
I would be in support of this, but I would be very interested in the Minister's comments to make sure that it is a macroeconomic policy that doesn't just focus on revenue. It recognizes the expenditure drivers that if we don't get them under control, they will keep us chronically in the poor house.
The other piece I would look to see built into this as we anticipate the future, is the issue of some type of fund, legacy fund, heritage fund, for the future that we have to build into this policy so that we can recognize that, as we speak, oil, gas and diamonds are being taken out of this territory that will never be replaced and that our children and grandchildren and their children, you can use as many generations as you can think of, are going to count on us now to set the proper plans in place. That includes putting money aside for those generations because the oil and gas won't always be there nor will the diamonds. But if you do this right, the land should be there, the caribou should be there and they should still have a good life. They should be able to still live off some of the good and sound investment decisions we are going to make as a government and the pieces we are going to put in place in the coming months. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.