We’ll definitely do that with the community of Hay River and also the surrounding small communities that the Member alluded to earlier.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today my questions are based on learning that in North

Dakota, workers pay income taxes to the state of North Dakota regardless of where they reside. I’d like to direct my questions to the Minister of Finance exploring our situation. Early in the previous Assembly, we learned that we were losing about $300 million per year to high salary workers flying in to work in the NWT mines from other provinces.

Would the Minister have any update on how much this figure is currently for mine workers and what additional we are losing now for oil and gas workers?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can commit to get that information for the Member.

Thanks very much to the Minister for that commitment. I think he would probably agree that it’s a substantial number and not something we’d like to see. A report published in 2008 by the Parkland Institute pointed out that the GNWT does collect the payroll tax from all workers, including those who fly in and out, which I think is beneficial, but I don’t believe we have increased those payroll taxes in the last five years. Now, this could be done in a way that does not change things except increase the tax we collect from fly-in/fly-out workers.

Would the Minister be able to confirm that raising the payroll tax for high-income workers while lowering the income tax by an equal amount, or the payroll tax, or income tax for those at lower income would allow the GNWT to collect increased taxes from fly-in/fly-out workers without changing the tax burden on NWT residents? Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t have access to the document that the Member is quoting from the Parkland Institute. I can indicate to the Member that we have looked at increasing the payroll tax in nearly every Assembly that I’ve been in. We’ve broken it down in great detail; we’ve looked at it from every angle. The bottom line determination to date has been that increasing the payroll tax, when you look at all the administrative costs and the complexities and the amount of money spent making sure that there is no negative impact on Northerners has made it not worth pursuing at this juncture. Thank you.

Thanks to the Minister for those comments. I would be happy to provide him with a copy of the report, although this isn’t totally from the report. The Minister mentioned it has to have a benefit to it. There are some costs associated with this. Right now we have the federal government collecting income tax for us. That’s a bit of a deal, because it’s an expensive process. At some point, you hit an inflection point where it becomes

worthwhile paying the administration and doing the collection yourself.

Has the Minister looked into that at all to decide when it would be… I appreciate his commitment to find out how much we are losing. Maybe he would be interested in doing some projections. Has the Minister looked into at what point we might consider collecting those ourselves? Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, we would be more than willing and interested to appear before a committee to lay out in detail the specifics of the payroll tax as we have it set up now and the work that we’ve done in looking at alternatives and options to increasing. We have, in fact, done that in the past and it may be time to have another look at it. I would be interested in looking at the Parkland Institute paper, to see if there is something new that hasn’t been contemplated. As well, I think the big issue is the leakage and what is the best way to prevent that leakage of all that money going directly south, and is the payroll tax increase the only or the best way to do that. I know we have had, and are having, discussions with Dominion Diamonds, for example, to look at ways that we can encourage and incent more people to stay and come to the North to live and work, not just work. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to the Minister. There has been a lot of work done and I supported that and appreciated that. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be getting us where we want to go.

Just following up on my last, what action is the Minister taking to discuss this topic with our neighbouring jurisdictions, particularly Nunavut and the Yukon? Certainly, they have to be having similar issues and maybe they will more and more. So there’s an opportunity, maybe, for northern Canada to have a special dispensation where we can actually collect income tax from dollars made here. Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, in fact I do believe, as well, that Alberta has the same challenge with a significant amount of workers it brings in mainly from eastern Canada on an ongoing basis. We have had discussions about the challenges they face. I haven’t had any immediate or recent discussions with our northern territories. I have had more discussions with Alberta as they struggle to come to grips with the same issue. They may have come up with no surefire solutions, either, because the planes still fly on a weekly basis full of workers returning home or on shift change. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources. I would like to ask him about a letter that was written about two months ago. The NWT Chapter for Council of Canadians made a request to the Minister of ENR. That request was for an investigation under the NWT Environmental Rights Act. The letter said, “This letter asks you to investigate the likely release of contaminants not specifically named by ConocoPhillips Canada Resources Corp under the Type A land use permit and Type B water licence in the Tulita district issued by the Sahtu Land and Water Board and to require full public disclosure of all chemicals used.”

I would like to know, first of all, from the Minister, whether or not he is aware of this letter or this request, and if yes, can he provide an update to the House on where this request now sits. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The letter has been responded to. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, thank you to the Minister for that information. I was not aware. Perhaps the Minister could advise us as to what was included in that letter. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in some way, as I’m sure the letter will become public knowledge soon enough, I am declining the request or the demand that we strike an investigation into the Sahtu permits that were handed out. There are a number of reasons for that, which I would be happy to discuss if the Member has further questions. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I do have questions for the Minister. I guess I don’t understand why he would deny this request for an investigation. The act is Section 4, I think it is, and the act is relatively clear. It states that residents may apply to the Minister for an investigation. I need to ask the Minister why he feels that this investigation is not merited. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the project that was called into question had already gone through a thorough environmental assessment process under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, which is federal legislation. That act came after the implementation of the Environmental Rights Act. When the Environmental Rights Act was drafted in the 1980s, in my opinion and from what I understand, it did not contemplate such legislation and was the only

opportunity Members had at that juncture to raise issues. Since then, we set up land and water boards. We’ve had the environmental process and it was given a thorough screening. On that basis, I declined to call another investigation in what, in my opinion, would have been a type of double jeopardy on the process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thanks to the Minister for his response. I can appreciate his rationale but I have to agree to disagree as, unfortunately, we often do. I think the chemicals need to be made evident to us and the public.

Could the Minister advise when the letter was sent, and was it e-mailed or was it mailed? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we have a common concern about making sure we have the best industry practises when it applies to any type of resource development; in this case, hydraulic fracturing. As a government, we have come forward with a draft guidance on the issue of best practises for hydraulic fracking. That information, the document, now sits with committee, looking for their feedback.

As industry has indicated to us, as well, they are prepared to do full disclosure. It’s something that is supported by CAP. We are looking for feedback, but we are fully intent to make sure we manage and have that balance between the resource development and protection of the land, water and animals. I believe the letter went out last week. I will have to double-check. We probably did e-mail and regular mail, but I will double-check for the Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.