Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the treaty does state that the government will provide housing. However, the treaty does not state that housing will be free within that treaty. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to thank the Minister for saying that, and perhaps, you know, the issue's not as simple as that. For example, in terms of jurisdictions, you know, sometimes because of jurisdictions we get caught up in red tape. Sometimes the fact is that we have to board up homes because of jurisdictional messes between governments and First Nations communities. Recently, there has been steps in terms of trying to sort out the jurisdictions, the red tape, to try to bring housing to citizens that need it, particularly on the Hay River Reserve. Could the Minister update this House in terms of ensuring that progress has been made on that front, and ensuring housing for people that need them, at the same time explain the role of the Minister and the department in terms of working with First Nations?

Specifically to the Hay River Reserve, there was an issue where there were units that sat empty for many years because of land tenure. When I came into governance, and prior to me as well, it was brought up as an issue. We worked on it very diligently, and I'm really pleased to report actually that we’ve negotiated with the federal government so that we do have land tenure and that we can actually put those units to use within the community. There are still more... I think there's four more; I may be incorrect. But I think that we're still looking at working with that with the federal government to try to get all of the units so that we can actually use those within the Hay River Reserve. Because I'm in agreement, it's really inappropriate that these units are being stagnated because of the tri-lateral agreements that we had in place. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's sometimes almost like a puzzle in terms of ensuring the immediate needs and critical needs of people are met. That's the obligation of this government that we have in terms of taking over responsibility from the federal government and ensuring that communities and families do receive houses. In terms of working with First Nations, you know, some aspire to ensure that home ownership is a critical need, and that's their focus. But sometimes public housing, you know, people would rent their houses for a long time and not really perhaps aspire to own their own homes. What are the long-term goals of the GNWT in respect to self-government of First Nations in regards to housing? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Self-governance is an aspect that I actually take personally, and that I do respect and honour and believe it is the right way to support First Nations people and give them back ownership of their people and all of their culture, etcetera. I am committed to working closely with the First Nations communities and seeing what we can do to provide them, because at some point within self-governance, there will come a time, maybe not in this government, but soon, that they will need to take ownership of all of their services, housing, child protection, income support, all of those things. The more tools that we can give them beforehand so that they are successful in that, the better off they will be. I am starting to give consideration about what type of tools and how we will work toward it, how we will work with the self-governments so that they have the tools that they need so that when they are ready to take on housing. We will set them up to succeed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Deh Cho.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There has been a lot of progress in terms of self-determination of First Nations communities, ensuring they have responsibility for their citizens, and housing is one aspect of that. Could the Minister provide an overview of to this side of the House in terms of how it's working with First Nations communities that aspire to have self-government agreements with the Government of Canada and what its role is?

None of the community governments have approached me and said that they were looking to take on housing, but I know that it is something that we need to do in the future, so any of the governments that is actually wanting to take on the housing role, I am more than willing to support them with that, understanding that I don't want to set people up to fail, so I don't want to just dump it on them. I want to make sure that we have a solid plan that they can have the capacity to be able to take it on and succeed with that, and I would love to have a pilot government. If anyone wants to come forward, that would be wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nunakput.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, earlier I spoke about the Ulukhaktok arena closure. My questions are for the Minister of MACA. Mr. Speaker, my first question is: what is the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs doing to assist Ulukhaktok with their remediation of its arena? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs.

Yes, thanks, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 2015, the Hamlet of Ulukhaktok identified mould issues in their arena facility. They had arrangements with the consulting company on an existing project in the community, and while they were there, they engaged them to help them deal with the mould, so they have done that. A regional office, we were in communication with them. We were comfortable with the approach that they were taking, so we left that with them. As to what MACA is doing to help the system, we provide the community infrastructure funding that they are able to utilize, but at the end of the day, the community of Ulukhaktok took ownership of this, and they took steps to ensure that it was dealt with. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my second question to the Minister is, and I appreciate the answer, my question is: has the department reviewed the consultant's report and discussed the issues with the Hamlet of Ulukhaktok, and what are the costs associated with the remediation?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have not reviewed the consultant's report. Again, that was a decision that was made by the community of Ulukhaktok, and if they had any questions or if they needed any assistance, then all they have to do is call our office and we will provide whatever assistance we can. But a shout out to the community of Ulukhaktok for taking ownership in this and dealing with it. We make our people available to them for any type of advice or technical assistance we can provide. As to what the actual cost is of the remediation, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is public tender was led for the remediation work through the Hamlet of Ulukhaktok with a consulting company they are working with, and the tenders are actually closing on Friday, June 10th. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Minister for that answer. The importance of having recreation activities, especially far up North in small communities is very important, especially in the isolated areas that we live in. My region is furthest North in the territory and the impacts are native in very many ways. Mr. Speaker, my final question: will the Minister commit to assist the Hamlet council to address this issue so that the people of Ulukhaktok will be skating and curling this fall?

Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I take the Member's point. We know the recreational facilities are very important to a lot of smaller communities, and I know a community like Ulukhaktok utilizes their facility quite often. We will make ourselves available to the community of Ulukhaktok, should they seek any advice. They are managing the issue. They are managing the project. They are providing our regional office with key milestone times throughout the project, and my understanding is the work is expected to be completed in this summer and fall, so they should be open for the winter season.

Masi. Oral questions. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, reply to commissioner's opening address. Item 11, replies to budget address, day six of seven. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.

Masi. Replies to budget address, day six of seven, Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. The difference of opinion between Cabinet and Regular MLAs with the 2015-16 budget reflects some unfinished business around the mandate. Our problem is what then-vice president George Bush Sr. described as “the vision thing.”

As an interesting aside, I want to provide some context for this quote. Bush was considering a run at the presidency as Ronald Reagan's second term in office came to an end. You might recall that Reagan was known as the Great Communicator, but up to that point in 1987, Bush hadn't been very effective in articulating what he stood for, so a friend suggested he spend some time thinking about his fundamental values and beliefs. Then he could tell voters where he wanted to take them. Bush's response was dismissive. “Oh, the Vision Thing.” We 19 MLAs spent hours and days coming up with a mandate for this 18thAssembly. We looked at the transition documents our colleagues in the 17thleft us. We looked at the promises each of us had made to voters. We considered the briefings provided by government departments, and our draft mandate got bigger and bigger and bigger. The mandate included a section called fiscal context, which made the case for cuts in order to generate a cash surplus to invest in infrastructure. At that point, the question of how much cash and what infrastructure remained unanswered. We debated this point as a Caucus without coming to a common understanding of the issue. Government wanted it in. We Regular MLAs wanted it out. Ultimately, Regular MLAs voted to remove this section during the debate of the mandate in February.

In hindsight, this debate turns out to be most significant, the most significant the Members of the 18thAssembly have had to date. Almost everything we have done since has been related by the government to the need to create a surplus by making cuts to the government's operating budget. Despite taking out the fiscal context section, the discussion about the need for a $150 million surplus didn't and won't go away. The Minister of Finance told the House in February that, “unless we find a way to curtail our expenditures and/or grow our economy by approximately $150 million over the next five years, the GNWT will continue to use short-term borrowing to pay for operating expenditures and to finance infrastructure investment.”

The Minister of Finance also announced that there would be no new taxes, so the emphasis was on cuts. The regular MLAs interpreted this action as austerity and warned they wanted to see greater balance between generating new revenue and cuts. The government introduced a revenue options paper that dismissed most ideas as unworkable because they would increase the cost of living. Still, we wanted the government to take the public's advice on how to get this balance right. The Minister of Finance responded by setting up an e-mail address backed by a small-scale awareness campaign to gather their responses to four specific questions. They asked which programs and services could be cut, how to be more efficient, which taxes to increase, but most importantly, the balance that I just discussed.

The Minister tabled that document with the budget last week. There were 36 responses from individuals and organizations, and I would like to thank everyone who took the time to participate. The responses don't represent a consensus on what to cut or whether new taxes are acceptable, and it is not clear how the Finance Minister incorporated their responses in the budget he delivered last week. I will say the budget he delivered last week is the budget he promised in February, a budget that marched us towards a surplus so we can invest in infrastructure. In the meantime, between the February sitting of the House and the budget delivered last week, Regular MLAs reviewed business plans developed by each of the departments and asked Ministers and department staff questions just the way we are now when we sit as Committee of the Whole. It soon became clear through this process that departments were also struggling with “the vision thing.” Cabinet gave them targets for cuts. If there were principles for making cuts, it's not clear what they were. I can't find a way to relate them to the mandate priorities which should have been the overarching guidance. What we ended up with is a mixture of staff and program reductions. It is as if we went through the House to gather stuff for a garage sale. Whoa, there's this fondue set we got for a wedding present we never use. When was the last time anyone played this game? This was an expensive winter coat, but it never did fit properly.

Without a clear vision at the top, there wasn't a vision to share with the civil service about our common values and there still isn't. As recently as mid-May, Regular MLAs warned the government that they were unconvinced that generated a $150 million surplus was either realistic or necessary, yet in last week's budget, the Finance Minister said, and I quote, "our target is $150 million in savings or new revenues to establish a short-term cash surplus position by the end of the 18thAssembly." Mr. McLeod goes on to report that the budget he presented last week represents 45 per cent of that total, so that means the exercise we've just been going through is going to come around again as soon as this fall when business plans for the next fiscal year are presented to Regular MLAs, and once again, we will be balancing cuts against tax increases in order to generate a cash surplus to invest in infrastructure.

There are some things we could do differently next time starting with the Vision Thing. We as 19 MLAs need to make another effort to come up with a common vision for this 18thAssembly. The process that led us to create five priority areas, then 25 explanatory priorities, and 136 commitments is not helping us in this budget process. We need a strong, simple statement about what we are doing financially, and most importantly, we have to try to reach consensus on this point. This is the first time we have attempted to create an overarching mandate on the basis of agreed priorities, and it is fair to say it hasn't totally worked. We need to learn from this and adjust the process. A second change is to agree on what we are creating a surplus for. The Minister has reported an infrastructure deficit of more than $3 billion. What are our priorities within that need? Houses, schools, health centers, roads? They are all vying for position. We need to create and agree on a list of priorities that reflect territory-wide benefits. I don't disagree with building a road to Whati. I just think the community needs housing more. A third change is about how the government communicates what it is doing with its budget. In the financial update delivered in February, the Minister said, “unless we make changes to expenditure management, we will not have the fiscal resources to make strategic economic investments, let alone sustain current programs and services.”

We have zigzagged from talking about impending crisis to a budget that, despite the cuts, delivers more spending than last years did. During that evolution, people who live, work, and invest in the NWT worried about their future, the future of government services, and the future of the territorial economy. Not that there aren't things to worry about with our volatile resource-based economy and small population, but it's time to better match words with the actions. We need to stop talking about an impending crisis and start talking about what is being delivered, which is incremental change. The budget address, I hope, will begin a new dialogue about our finances.

A fourth change is how to involve the public in budgeting. Historically, the Finance Minister has appeared at public meetings to hear what voters have to say in communities all around the NWT. He has met with lobby groups and NGOs to hear their thoughts. He has encouraged the public to write e-mails and letters. The Finance Minister needs to ramp up his efforts, to gather public input for the next budget. He also needs to find a way to reflect the advice he's being given. Consultation isn't only about listening. It's about synthesizing the input into coherent direction and making a clear response to the trends in that direction, and above all, it's about being willing to change the end result.

Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, going to press on with our consideration of the budget that is now before us. It is a budget that has more benefits than any of us expected, and some good ones such as increases to Student Financial Assistance, the creation of the NWT Child Benefit, and restructured daycare funding, to name a few that are important to me. Before we look at the budget for the next fiscal year, we need to revisit our understanding of our fiscal context to see whether we can come to terms with “the vision thing.” Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Replies to budget address. Item 12, petitions. Item 13, reports of standing special committees. Item 14, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 15, tabling of documents. Minister of Justice.

I wish to table the following document entitled “Report of the Northwest Territories Judicial Remuneration Commission in 2016.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Tabling of documents. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.