Thank you, committee. We will begin with the “Introduction” section. Do Members have any comments or questions regarding this section? I'm seeing no comments or questions. Do Members have any comments or questions regarding the “Fiscal Context” section? Mr. Vanthuyne.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not seeing folks wanting to speak to this, so if I may, I'm going to make a motion, Mr. Chair, and I move that tabled document 1-18(2), Proposed Mandate of the Government of the Northwest Territories, 2016-2019, be amended by deleting the section titled Fiscal Context on pages six and seve

Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. The document is being circulated. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Vanthuyne.

Members, there is really only one part of this document that I feel doesn't belong. I feel that the “Fiscal Context” portion is not really appropriate for this document. This section was not developed in collaboration with all 19 Members. Instead, it was inserted after the discussion on priorities and after the first review of the mandate. The introduction of the mandate document speaks well to the goals and objectives of this government. The introduction speaks at length about collaboration, respect, and openness. It describes our government in the context of being socially, environmentally, and economically responsible for the greater good of the people. It speaks about these responsibilities being built by a strong consensus government. It talks about values and priorities of our people. It says that a thriving economy will provide jobs and help the government pay for programs and services. In summary, the introduction clearly supports what the mandate document is supposed to achieve on a big-picture, visionary level. But then the document switches direction to the fiscal context, a background component that reflects just a narrow point in time. Suddenly, in contrast to a long-term view expressed in the introduction, this section paints a bleak picture full of GDP percentages, transfer funding assumptions, infrastructure deficits, and past fiscal comparisons along with naming businesses, and such dreary language as “We can no longer afford the suite of programs and services we have been providing to our residents at the levels we have been providing them.” Respectfully, in my view, the entire “Fiscal Context” portion has no relevance in this important document, and per the motion, I am proposing that it be removed. I believe the public already understands the fiscal situation we face. If it requires elaboration, then I suggest the Finance Minister can say as much to the public, as he has already been doing, or add it to the annual budget address. I believe the mandate document is a great tool for communicating our vision for the next four years and beyond. As such, it should embrace our overall goals and direction and should not be used for sending a fiscal context message that carries adverse undertones and only represents a small point in time. I look forward to an active exchange and the views of this important document. If I may, I would like to ask for a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Are there any other Members who would like to speak to this motion? Mr. Testart.

I would like to speak in support of my colleague's motion. When we are speaking of our overall vision moving forward, reminding people of some very specific point in time, entirely relevant statistics and fiscal challenges are not as helpful to a plan, a plan to move ahead. I would prefer, if we are going to speak to these challenges, that we do it in the context of the initiatives we are going to use to get around these, rather than focusing on the specific numbers that are representative of our economy in decline and challenges to our government. I would rather see those numbers reflected in how we’re going to get out of this. Again, that isn't done, and putting the section at the front of the document sets a tone for the rest of it that we have many things, but most likely it is going to be difficult to secure all of them. I appreciate that the intention of this is to be realistic. The intention of this is to provide a realistic sense of what's achievable, but this should be an ambitious document, and it should be designed, again, to correct these challenges, not to be mired in them. By removing it, we present a more hopeful and optimistic plan, and one that I certainly can support.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.

When we first started to discuss the mandate, I had proposed some changes to this section to try to make it a little more balanced. I will give some examples of those. The focus, really, in the fourth paragraph: “GNWT has a fiscal problem that will require expenditure management.” There is nothing in this section that talks about efficiencies or new revenues. I would look for a much more balanced approach. There are a couple of other parts of this that I find objectionable. Another sentence here that says, “We should not take any actions that will decrease investment or increase the cost of living or operating a business in the Northwest Territories.” Changes have actually been introduced while we have been MLAs that will increase the cost of living, and I'll give an example: The electronics recycling fees. But that's for a specific purpose and it serves an end, and I'll support that. I believe all the MLAs support that sort of thing. That kind of a blanket statement, I find really quite objectionable and tried to have that adjusted during our debate and discussion around the mandate. I’m not sure I can support the approach of building up large surpluses in our O and M to fund Roads to Resources. I have been on record as saying that, and that's, I think, part of the messaging in the fiscal context here. The other sort of messages in here are around that, “We can no longer afford the suite of programs and services we have been providing to our residents at the levels we have been providing them.” I don't actually accept that statement as fact, and tried to have it changed and adjusted through discussion, but I was unsuccessful. There are a couple of problems, I think, factually with the content of this. I mentioned earlier how the impact on the federal cut to our Territorial Formula Financing funding is not the $33 million that's specified in this. This could have been corrected before it was tabled in the House, but it wasn't. We now know that it is, I believe, $9 millio The second sentence talks about the resource sector accounting for one third of our economy. My understanding is that it's 25 per cent. So there are a number of issues with this. When this was first brought to Caucus, I also talked about, if we are going to have something in here about the fiscal context, we should have something about the environmental context and something about the social context, so that people have a good understanding of the situation that we're in and how that has helped shape what's in the mandate. Those other two pieces were not added. They were not dealt with in any way, in my view. Given those reservations about the content of this, I am more than happy to see the whole thing be deleted from the mandate, and I agree with my colleagues who have spoken before that this is not necessary as part of the mandate. We have better places to talk about this in terms of the budgeting cycle and so on, so I am in support of the motion.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Would any other Member like to speak to the motion? Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the Members for the significant effort that went into developing the GNWT's mandate. With the acceptance of the mandate, the government will have the strategic direction to proceed to advance the priorities identified by the 18th Legislative Assembly. As we start to begin the planning to start making decisions to advance the mandate, we cannot ignore our current economic realities. As Members heard in my fiscal update, our economy has not recovered from the global economic and financial crisis of 2008. The five-year outlook for the NWT economy is not great. In fact, the data suggest a protracted decline in resource production, which will negatively impact not only resource revenue but also northern businesses and employment. Our existing diamond mines are maturing and currently planned projects will not replace their contribution to the territorial economy. At the same time, exploration necessary for new development is also slowing down. Slow economic growth and stagnant population levels produce a flat revenue outlook, meaning fewer financial resources for government programs and services. However, if unchecked, our expenditures will continue to grow at a higher pace than revenue growth. We therefore continue to plan proactively, making sure proper resources are in place to support the government's priorities. We need to remember that the GNWT has a budget of $1.8 billion. We will continue to invest in the NWT economy and supporting program and service delivery. Really, what we are talking about is trying to develop a mandate that means all things to all people. When a mandate becomes a wish list, it needs to be tempered by reality. The “Fiscal Context” section is an attempt to mitigate the expectations of a new mandate so that people realize we need to look at our financial situation before we as a government spend money on improving or instituting new programs and services. Taking the “Fiscal Context” section out of the mandate document does not change the realities we face as a government or for the public we serve, and we owe it to the public to be forthcoming with the challenges we face as we plan to implement our mandate. I believe that just shows good leadership. I would ask the Members to remember as they make their vote that removing an issue from a document does not make it go away, and the government still faces difficult challenges to finance existing programs and services that will not change.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. I'm seeing no more comments to the motion. I ask the mover to close debate. Mr. Vanthuyne.

I am grateful for the comments that everybody has provided here today. Again, I also recognize the previous speaker’s messages and the intent once again of what he is trying to describe. However, I think that the folks here within the room are of the opinion that it's not a matter of content that we're debating here. It's a matter of this “Fiscal Context” not being in an appropriate place that it ought to be in. I thank everybody for their contributions and I’d be prepared to put the motion to vote.

All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.

The results of the recorded vote are 10 in favour; zero opposed; seven abstentions. The motion is carried

---Carried

Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we report progress.

There is a motion on the floor to report progress. The motion is in order and non-debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. I will now rise and report progress. ---Carried

I would like to thank the officials and the witnesses for joining us today.

Mahsi. Can I have a report of the Committee of the Whole? Member for Hay River North.

Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Tabled Document 1-18(2), Proposed Mandate of the Government of the Northwest Territories, 2016-2019. I would like to report progress, with one motion being adopted. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the Committee of the Whole be concurred with.

Do I have a seconder? Seconder, Member for Great Slave. To the motion.