Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few observations here. I really am concerned with the purpose not being sharp enough. I disagree with my colleague who thinks or believes strongly -- and I say that respectfully -- that dividends should be paid, but I think the purpose really needs to be narrowed down over the long haul. Although I don’t necessarily think it needs to be done today, but one of the issues being is that if the purpose is truly for the people of the Northwest Territories, then it needs to be directed as such. I think this money needs to be targeted directly to our revenues that we need. Because ultimately this will be for hospitals, education, or even maybe general repairs of who knows what type of infrastructure. I mean, the demand is so long we’d be here all day talking about ideas of where to spend it long before we’d make any revenue on it. So I wouldn’t support any ways of chopping it up because I think if our real goal is to make sure that it’s for a communal sense for the people of the Northwest Territories, then what better way than to put it into a general revenue. I just would have hoped that it would have been sharper, as I pointed out. In my view this could respond to changes in corporate revenues.
One thing that I would say, it’s almost as if we have to caution the public on potential expectations and what this can deliver. This is an important vehicle that’s being developed and I think that can’t be stated clear enough. It also isn’t pennies from heaven where it will be endless. We have to know that this will probably start out very small and take quite a few years to grow and quite a few years to get large enough to have any really effective difference on the wishes or direction that the people of the Northwest Territories want at that time. Keeping in mind, as well, that it’s 20 years from now and those expectations and beliefs may change as to the particular focus.
I think it’s critical. It’s a lesson that I hope in some form or manner every parent teaches their own children, which is start saving as quickly as possible, and those are lessons I think anyone can learn and teach their kids. I think here is a clear demonstration that we’re living good values. I always think that some of the economics that we deal with here are really kitchen table economics, which is we have to make sure that we don’t spend more money than we make and we have to also keep a keen eye as to what’s important from a value sense. Putting away money as soon as possible in whatever increments is possible is important. That’s what has brought us here today, which I think is very important.
One of the issues that we see here today is that it is an investment vehicle. Of course it has to be set up before we’re able to direct revenues. This is the first step that is going to be probably one of several others. The challenge, of course, is deciding early as to where and what type of rate will investment revenues be pouring into this long-term bank account. It’s been suggested, as well, how they should be managed and those are problems that are going to have to be reviewed through the regulations, and certainly I look forward to whoever is here at the day 10 years from now when they do a general direction of where the fund is going in 10 years, as is cited in the bill under a 10-year review.
I think the Minister agreeing to switch it from 10 years to 20 years really gives us a chance to do something with the savings. I’m very hopeful that the savings will become true opportunities for the future. I have fully supported the position that FMB should manage the fund, at least until the review has decided or dictated that there’s a better way of doing this. Because I don’t see that if it’s just a fund sitting in a bank account, we have very smart money managers in our territorial government and they manage our money quite well. I have often said, and I strongly believe, that the Northwest Territories has a government that has money problems or investment problems, it’s only based on political direction or decisions. It really doesn’t come down to the fault of the staff. It’s politics that always seem to play a role.
Just on the note of politics, although I was unsuccessful on trying to get into the bill the suggestion that a two-thirds majority should be involved in any change provided to this act whether it’s an amendment to how the money should be spent or an amendment to make an amendment within the bill, I feel still today fundamentally strong that we must protect the bill at any cost. By suggesting a two-thirds majority of the House, as I believe was stated by Professor Hogg, I believe that is a valid position that could be taken. As we all know, it could be somewhat constitutionally controversial on the type of position if two-thirds majority is right or even legal, but it’s been noted various times throughout the committee process as we’ve been moving forward on the review of this bill that it’s not uncommon but not seen and used in the wrong way. In other words, it could be done. I was hoping we could have gotten that into the bill but it’s not here today.
Just a last piece I do want to highlight on. In reviewing the bill I noticed a couple of typos and I’ve already brought it to the attention of staff and as I understand it, they don’t get changed, but the one worth particularly noting is I caught under Summary and it points out to 20-year review -- sorry, 20-year transfer -- that the money is not allowed to be tapped into. In speaking with the officials who obviously know their jobs very well,
said you can’t change the summary. So there will have what I would call an appearance of a contradiction. Even if the summary says 10 years the money can’t be tapped into under the summary, it really has no effect on the mechanism and mechanics of the bill, as I think I understand it. That error has been carried through under headings, but as I’ve been informed, the headings can be adjusted and is certainly within the full purview of those who come up with the final draft. That was obviously from taking a very keen look and reading the bill word for word, very keen, with those hawkish eyes I’ve got.
Mr. Chairman, I think it would be understated that today is a good day. I think today is actually a brilliant day for some of the things we’ve done in government. It’s a shame for most of us, and I’d dare to say probably none of us will be here in 20-plus years, but I’m hoping that in 20 years they’ll look back and think the decisions made to move forward on this Heritage Fund were an extremely wise move. It may have caused some controversial issues as to how we should spend money on present-day problems, and I recognize that those are very important, as mentioned by my colleague Mr. Beaulieu, and I think in many cases he’s right about emergency need versus trying to save money for the future. The balance of that is really a political decision and it’s a challenging one. But I certainly hope that the generation that comes after us looks back and says we were a wise Assembly and we did things that really made a difference. I believe strongly today the Heritage Fund Act is one of those types of decisions that people will be grateful that we did. Thank you.