Thank you, Madam Chair. For me, this department here, even though we are talking about capital estimates, this department here is literally the lynchpin for the way we do business in the Northwest Territories. So, again, this department has a broader aspect than just the $200,000 that we have before committee.
Madam Chair, we have been told time and time again, devolution will reduce reliance on federal funding, and yet I kept saying show me the evidence where this occurs, and to this day the department has never been able to show how and by what measure those broad statements we continue to hear on devolution money, how this will affect the budget and, more importantly, the money we have for capital expenditures.
On the token of expenditure growth, according to some of the numbers I have before me, this growth is only a little over 1 percent, where, according to some of the numbers here, we were seeing forced growth at probably just a little over 2 percent.
If we figure in the inflation rate of Canada – the most recent number that we can confirm is just a little over 1.3 percent – really what we are seeing is just a slight reduction of spending in real terms. So I
think that what we have here is we have a scaled back budget, when we continue to hear from the government that we need to invest in our infrastructure deficit. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen that term come up, but if we are truly wanting to invest in our infrastructure deficit, have a very funny way of showing that.
What I mean by that is that we are seeing the resurgence of our P3 initiatives. I fear that P3 is going to be the new terminology of the Northwest Territories. In fact, I am really fearful that the term “P3” will represent and be defined as NWT as we move forward, and I am really concerned that the management framework around P3s is going to be very detrimental to our cash management and our debt management in years to come.
Madam Chair, I always like to bring these types of talks back to a point of reference. Now, the point of reference is always the public accounts, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. It was stated, “A Government’s financial health should be measured in terms of its sustainability, flexibility and vulnerability.” Those are three very large and key aspects. I ask this committee, and I ask this department and this Minister, how well are we dealing on those three categories, on sustainability, flexibility and vulnerability? I think these measures are clearly indicative of we are in trouble. I want to stress that. I think we are in bigger trouble than we are led to believe. GNWT continues to wane this vulnerability of trouble and claim that we have this under control. They’ll throw a lot of pie charts and graphs, and they will talk about how great we are doing: we are third best in Canada here in debt to equity and debt to GDP. These are great by design, but as I said in my Member’s statement the other day, by whose design? Because these clearly aren’t the same definitions and measurables that I am seeing across Canada. These are clearly not the same definitions and variables that are used by organizations like the Fraser Institute. We are not in the best matrix of Canada in terms of performance, and somehow we are leaning in that direction. I don’t want to cry wolf, Madam Chair. I’m using statistical, actual numbers to say we are in trouble.
While we’ve heard in terms of how to deal with our shortfall in revenues, let’s increase the population by 2,000 by 2019, well, how are we doing with that Madam Chair? How are we doing with that? We have decreased in the last year by 218 people, but more importantly, what have we lost? The other number that we don’t talk about, in terms of loss during that period, is how many people we have lost in the workforce during that same period. We lost a net 718 people. That is Stats Canada and these are our own stats. So our in-migration/out-migration has dropped even more than anticipated, and these are the people that are paying taxes. These are our men and women who are applying for jobs we have lost. There has been a huge brain
drain, and I am greatly concerned that no one wants to talk about our out-migration rate. We are looking at the overpopulation, which is fine because there is a taxation number attached to that and I can clearly understand that, but I am concerned that really our only true tactic in dealing with what I call a scaled back budget, literally orchestrated and hand smithed by the Department of Finance with the departments is scaled back.
When you look at the finances keen on seeing investments spent in the public infrastructure, you know it’s disheartening when you look at this budget as a whole. There is no new increase in community investment and capital. That number is stuck at $28 million, if you look at this budget. So, truly, if you are trying to tell the people that we want to invest in infrastructure in our communities, my god, Madam Chair, we don’t hear that often enough in this House. Every community member here speaks about their needs, and here is an opportunity for this Cabinet, this government, this department, this Minister to address the shortfalls of communities. This is stuck at $28 million. So, clearly, I think that this is disheartening to see, again they’re talking out one side of their mouth and doing something else completely opposite.
But moreover, Madam Chair, and I will go to my last point, what are the guiding principles of this department? What are the guiding principles of this Minister when it comes to our fiscal policy? It has to be evidence based. I think we can all agree on that; it has to be evidence based. There has to be a framework on how this government and this department and Minister govern themselves and conduct themselves with our budget and with our investment.
What do they use is a Macroeconomic Policy Framework. That is their guiding light. Well, that framework is over seven years old. This was developed well before devolution and the recession of 2008. So, I think we would all agree, a lot has changed since devolution. I think a lot will agree that a lot has changed since 2008 when it comes to global finances and our finances in general. If we are being told that this is what is going to be the evidence base for growing and diversifying our economy in infrastructure purchasing, I’m concerned.
How can you do measurable investments, strategic investments with public dollars, with tax dollars, with a policy that is over seven years old? How do you effectively measure initiatives with such an irrelevant policy framework?
I will have, obviously, details as we continue this venture, and again, I don’t want to sound negative completely in my discourse, but I’m concerned, and that should be loud and clear and being resonated to the department and to the Minister. I am concerned, and until I hear otherwise, you will
continue to hear me indicate where I think we need to do better, and I will continue to do my job as a Regular Member to show that this department, this government is in trouble. Thank you, Madam Chair.