Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance, given the Budget Dialogue 2014 Taking Stock. In the report the Minister gives a good fiscal performance record. Moody’s has given us good rating and we have good fiscal policy.

In his report the Minister talks about the priorities, given the feedback from the people on the priorities, given the sombre realities of slow revenue growth.

Can the Minister tell the House what causes the slow revenue growth? What are the factors, knowing that we have some priorities in our communities? What does the revenue situation look like in the coming years?

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not wanting to get ahead of my budget address, I will make the observation that projections are for flat revenue growth between now and 2019, 2020. Anticipated growth of about less than half a percent, which means that the challenge for us is going to be to make sure that our expenditure growth does not exceed our revenue growth so that we can in fact maintain our Aa1 credit rating and all the other good financial indicators that we do have, like our debt to GDP ratio.

The other comments I heard in the discussions in the Sahtu are that we need to do more for our economy. In the Sahtu we have world-class oil and gas there, and they have the technology now in today’s world on the hydraulic fracking and there’s potential there, but we don’t have the infrastructure to get to our oil and gas revenue.

I want to ask the Minister, what are some of the things that he’s doing to see how we can improve our revenue? We need to have the economy to do things like health and social services, hospitals, roads and schools. We need the money.

Can the Minister inform the House as to what he has in the plans in regard to improving the economy?

Specifically in relation to the Sahtu, there are a number of things that are underway and being contemplated. The Member was at the budget dialogues, and the discussion was very clear the focus was on the next section of the Mackenzie Valley Highway, the Norman Wells to Wrigley section, and the need for roads.

The government has submitted, through the Minister of Transportation, an application for a special pot of money that exists at the federal level for initiatives and projects of national significance. We are making the case that this particular stretch of highway should meet that test. That’s one piece.

The other piece, as the Premier mentioned in his sessional statement, of course, is that we need the ability to make critical economic investments for infrastructure that is going to help promote and create the conditions for economic development. That’s the borrowing limit, and we’re waiting to see what happens in April because a lot of the initiatives and vision we have to implement are predicated on our ability as a mature government to be able to make those kinds of critical investments.

I heard the Premier and the Minister also at some point, and probably some of the Ministers also at some forum and the Assembly, say that we need to keep the dollars in our communities to keep the economy going. Right now, because of the low oil prices, in the Sahtu there is really no racking up of the Husky’s or the Conoco’s, so right now most of the economy is driven by the government infrastructure. However, because of the prices that we are challenged with, is there a policy within the government that says northern contractors will be first priority so the dollars would stay in the Sahtu rather than having contractors come out to the Sahtu, like the South, that are coming into the region because they can appreciate a lower price to do the work? Is there a policy to strengthen the economy in the Sahtu that they will have northern contractors given special consideration?

There are two tools that are available that are in existence and have been for some time. Of course, the first one being the Business Incentive Policy which provides northern preference, in some cases local preference. Then, of course, there’s the opportunity from time to time, if all the right conditions are met, where negotiated contracts will be considered.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the other comments that the Minister talked about with the people and what I understood from the report is that we were going to have to do some tightening of our belts and taking some responsibility of our lifestyle and the way we live.

Is there any type of initiative from this government going forward to inform our people that there are some things we have to do now, such as stopping drinking, stopping smoking, in order to save money for the government so they can do other things because our health costs are going sky high and those things that people are doing are costing our government and that’s where a lot of our money is going, dealing with some of the illnesses that are associated with these behaviours?

Very clearly the Member has identified a very important issue, the issue of personal choice, personal choice as it relates to a number of things. As the Member indicated, there are four basic choices that are driving a lot of our costs that are easily changed. That’s not abusing alcohol, don’t smoke, proper diet and exercise. Those four things, if they were managed properly through proper personal choice, would have an immediate impact on our bottom line.

Simple things like babies being born healthy without being affected by FASD, for example. So, the departments of Health and Social Services, Education and MACA are focused on prevention, active living, all these good things. But as the Member so clearly indicated, at the end of the day it’s a personal choice that’s going to make people do the right things, eat the right food, get off the couch, put that beer down and grab a glass of water before you go jogging. Only individual choice is going to get us there, but we can’t give up. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Colleagues, before we go on today, I’d like to welcome Ms. Cindy Dolynny in the House, Member Dolynny’s wife. Welcome, Cindy. The Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Education,

Culture and Employment and I want to follow up on my statement about income support policies and the impact that they have on those of our residents who apply for income support.

I’d like, first of all, to ask the Minister if he could please explain to me and explain to the House and explain to residents the rationale for the policy, which says that a Registered Retirement Savings Plan must be cashed in before a resident can access any income support. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The Minister responsible for income support, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Income assistance provides adequate benefits to clients, while considering household income as a family resource. Clients are expected to avail themselves of all financial resources. We’ve done that for so many years now.

RRSPs are considered to be a rainy day fund. As such, they should be used prior to accessing IA, income assistance, but the Registered Education Savings Plan and Disabilities Savings Plan are not counted as income. So these are just some of the rules that we have.

We must be financially responsible and also adhere to the rules of this House and the Auditor General of Canada when spending public money. These are the policies that we have and all the regulations within our GNWT. Mahsi.

I’m somewhat perplexed by the Minister’s answer, but I accept that he has provided us with some rationale. That the Registered Retirement Savings Plan is considered a rainy day fund, I would like to suggest that it’s going to be raining awfully hard when people reach retirement age, and if they have no pension from their work, which many of our residents do not, then it’s going to be raining very hard. I can’t accept that rationale.

I’d like to ask the Minister, I mentioned a contradiction in my statement, and in terms of contradictions it is the requirement of the department basically that the individual be reliant on government. The Minister says that we provide for residents. I don’t think $9 a day for food is very much of a provision for residents; however, we provide for our residents, but on the other hand we want them to make productive choices and to become independent. So please, Minister, can you explain how those two things are not contradictory? Thank you.

The Income Assistance program is based on need. All participants must demonstrate their financial needs as set out in the program legislation and regulations and also policies that we have to ensure all people are treated fairly across the Northwest Territories in a consistent manner. So when an individual has an

RRSP – most of the Income Assistance clientele do not have anything – so we must be fair to that clientele. That is part of the reason we have regulations in place, polices in place.

We do make changes over time. We’ve made some drastic changes to income security in 2007 and 2011. We are going through other changes in 2014-2015, Mr. Speaker. Mahsi.

Thanks to the Minister, but I have to frown on what I heard the Minister say, that it’s okay to penalize people for good planning. It’s okay to tell people that you’ve managed to save, you’ve got this money, use it up before we give you any money to help you out, especially when somebody has been successful and they’ve encountered a bit of a rough patch. They don’t need a lot of money, they need some money, but let’s make them destitute and then the government will look after them.

I would like to ask the Minister, he mentioned that there are some changes that are coming. I would like to know in line with these changes, when income support policies were last considered and all of the policies, not just one or two, but I’d like to know all of the policies in total.

Has the department looked at all policies, seen contradictions in those policies and done something about it? When was that done? Thank you.

Every opportunity that we have to review and make changes to our policies within income security programming, we’ve made changes along the way in 2007 and 2011. Now we’re onto 2014-2015. This is based on the feedback that we’ve received from clientele themselves and also the general public. We’re always open to those ideas, input and feedback. I will be presenting to standing committee on the changes that are coming in 2014-2015. We will update the standing committee. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister, I was going to ask what changes are coming. I guess I will wait with bated breath for them to come to committee.

I would like to know, when the Minister says they are constantly looking at things, are they looking at things in total? I suspect they are looking at an individual policy in isolation.

Have they considered the total impact of a change on the whole of the policies within their department, or do they simply look at one policy at a time? Thank you.

That all depends on the circumstances. If an individual client presents, say, a suggestion to us, then we will seriously look

at it. From the general public, if there is more than one policy that they want us to make some amendments to, those are areas we will seriously consider looking at. When the Member is asking if we change the whole overall policy within the GNWT Income Assistance program, I believe at this point we haven’t amended all policies within GNWT, but those are areas we are looking at from the feedback we receive from the public. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.