This is page numbers 4857 - 4880 of the Hansard for the 18th Assembly, 3rd Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was budget. View the webstream of the day's session.

Topics

Caroline Cochrane

Caroline Cochrane Range Lake

That, I don't know offhand. I do believe that we are interviewing three people, but if the Member would like, then I can confirm that, how many people were actually recommended.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Julie Green

Julie Green Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate that information. Can the Minister tell us whether anyone has been offered the job and has turned it down? Thank you.

Caroline Cochrane

Caroline Cochrane Range Lake

Again, at this time we're just in the middle of the interview process. I don't know if an offer was put out and if it was turned down. I am hoping, like I said, that we get the best person. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Mackenzie Delta.

Frederick Blake Jr.

Frederick Blake Jr. Mackenzie Delta

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in follow-up to my Member's statement, I have a few questions for the Minister of ENR. I mentioned how we have a huge wolf problem throughout the Northwest Territories. I've even heard it from my other colleagues throughout the Mackenzie Valley. I'd like to ask the Minister: will the Minister encourage his department to open up the bounty to the same level in the Beaufort Delta as it is here around Yellowknife? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.

Robert C. McLeod

Robert C. McLeod Inuvik Twin Lakes

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Wolf Incentive Policy was designed to assist with the declining caribou herds in the southern part of the Northwest Territories. We have a Wolf Incentive Area in place right now, and that is where the incentive would apply. However, throughout the Northwest Territories, any wolf that is harvested, they can bring it to their local office and they get $200. I think the Member is quite aware of that. If the wolf is skinned out, they get $400 plus $50 for the wolf skull, and then if it goes for a prime fur bonus, theoretically they can come out of it with $800 just throughout the Northwest Territories.

The Wolf Incentive Program is just for the Wolf Incentive Area, which is the wintering grounds of the two caribou herds that are in decline. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Frederick Blake Jr.

Frederick Blake Jr. Mackenzie Delta

Our moose and woodland caribou populations are also being affected in my riding. I'm sure the Minister has travelled around and noticed the big packs of wolves we have in our territory. Will the department take action and raise the level of the incentive in my riding?

Robert C. McLeod

Robert C. McLeod Inuvik Twin Lakes

Just based on the numbers of wolves that have been harvested over the last 10 years, the harvesters in the Beaufort Delta are actually very proficient hunters. We would almost have to go for a supplementary appropriation, if we were to raise the incentives. If you look all across the Northwest Territories, the bulk of the wolf harvest is in the Beau-Del region by quite a large margin, so they take advantage of the incentives that are offered now.

This is a pilot project, so if there were to be a decline in some of the wildlife out there because of the population of wolves, then, working with our co-wildlife partners or co-management partners, it is probably something that we would have to have a serious look at, but for this particular incentive that we're offering now, it is designed for the declining caribou herds in this part of the Northwest Territories. We heard from the tour that I did in the Monfwi a couple of weeks ago that wolves are one of the major problems, so this is one way we thought we could address it, along with a number of other initiatives that we're working on.

Frederick Blake Jr.

Frederick Blake Jr. Mackenzie Delta

You know, just to be fair, I think we should have the same price throughout the Northwest Territories. Everywhere I've travelled throughout my riding, there are wolves everywhere. If you go 10 miles out of the community in each direction, there is a pack of wolves, so it's pretty clear that we need action. I know there is a good incentive we have now, but just to be fair, to bring it up by $700, I know we may have to ask for a little more funding through the department, but I believe that that is a good investment because that is to help with the populations of moose, woodland caribou, and also Porcupine, which is healthy at the moment but, you know, if we don't take action now, I'm sure we'll see a big decline there. How soon can we see an increase in the incentive to bring down the wolf population in the Mackenzie Delta?

Question 563-18(3): Wolf Harvest Incentive Program
Oral Questions

February 13th, 2019

Page 4863

Robert C. McLeod

Robert C. McLeod Inuvik Twin Lakes

It is not something that we're looking at right now. Again, we are concentrating on the wolf harvest incentive areas where the declining caribou numbers are. That's what we're looking at right now. As far as the rest of the Northwest Territories, we do have a bit of an incentive for them to bring their wolves in and collect the money. One of the reasons we put this in place and one of the reasons we have the wolf incentive area in place is, in the past, there were people who brought in garbage-dump wolves, we call them, that were really no threat to the caribou herd. So we thought we'd have a Wolf Incentive Area, and the wolves that were harvested in that area would receive the incentive.

Across the rest of the Northwest Territories, that's another conversation we need to have. I hear the Member's point on the Porcupine caribou herd, and those numbers have been pretty stable for the last number of years, and I would like to think one of the reasons those numbers are stable is because of the number of wolves that are harvested up in the Richardson Mountains by the boys from Aklavik, the hunters from Aklavik. I would like to think that is one of the reasons. Again, that is another conversation we need to have. For now, we are concentrating our efforts on the numbers of caribou that are declining. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.

R.J. Simpson

R.J. Simpson Hay River North

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some more questions for the Minister of Justice. Earlier, I asked about the Legal Aid Outreach clinic and about getting information out to the public.

I see our guests are leaving here. I was worrying they were going to fall asleep. We don't have the sort of action they are used to in their party-based parliaments.

Mr. Speaker, I have some more questions for the Minister of Justice. Not everyone only needs legal information. Some people actually need a lawyer. You know, by having a lawyer, it actually helps the government. I think it helps bring down costs. It will shorten timelines. It will reduce a number of self-represented people in court. I would like to maybe get the Minister's take on this from what he knows about legal aid lawyers. If we increased the number of legal aid lawyers and maybe added another legal aid clinic in the territory, would those lawyers be busy or would they be sitting around, twiddling their thumbs? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Minister of Justice.

Louis Sebert

Louis Sebert Thebacha

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a hypothetical question, of course. I am sure they wouldn't be sitting around, twiddling their thumbs. I think they would be working very hard because there are a lot of clients out there who really do need the assistance of lawyers, legal aid or otherwise. The amount of work, I don't think, is likely to decrease. In fact, it is likely to increase. I think if we added more lawyers or clinics, it would be sufficiently busy to justify their salaries. Thank you.

R.J. Simpson

R.J. Simpson Hay River North

That is what I expected, especially given that, like I said earlier, the number of small-town lawyers across Canada are disappearing. You know, they are retiring. They are finding second careers in politics. I would like to know: would the Minister be open to actually looking into this and seeing if the need is justified and that perhaps we could take concrete steps toward adding an additional legal aid clinic?

Louis Sebert

Louis Sebert Thebacha

I guess I am part of the problem in this area because, as the Member across has mentioned, there is a problem. There were more lawyers, I think, in the smaller towns up here several years ago, active lawyers doing general practice, than there are now. Certainly, I am willing to look at this issue. Of course, adding a clinic or additional lawyers would involve additional expense, so we would have to proceed through the budgetary process. I am aware of the problem and am concerned and willing to look at it.

R.J. Simpson

R.J. Simpson Hay River North

I appreciate that. The Minister said he would be willing to look into it. I would like a commitment from the Minister. Will the Minister commit to looking into adding an additional legal aid clinic in the South Slave?

Louis Sebert

Louis Sebert Thebacha

Again, of course, there is the budgetary process that we would have to go through. I do recognize the issue and will make the commitment to look into it.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.

R.J. Simpson

R.J. Simpson Hay River North

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that commitment by the Minister. Let's go one step further. Will the Minister commit to looking into the viability of the Legal Aid Outreach clinic in the South Slave and an additional Legal Aid Outreach clinic lawyer in the South Slave?

Louis Sebert

Louis Sebert Thebacha

This might be an issue that the transition committee might look into because I don't think anything could be done in the very near future. Certainly, I am willing to look into this issue. Again, as I have said numerous times before, increase in cost would have to go through the budgetary process, but I am willing to look seriously at this issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker

The Speaker Jackson Lafferty

Masi. Oral questions. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to the Commissioner's opening address. Item 11, replies to budget address. Member for Kam Lake.

Mr. Testart's Reply
Replies To Budget Address

Page 4864

Kieron Testart

Kieron Testart Kam Lake

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reply to the final operations and maintenance budget of the 18th Legislative Assembly. When this sitting of the House began earlier this month, I recognized the opportunity this budget represents to put the NWT economy on the right footing to face the challenges we all know are on the horizon. The diamond mines that are the real drivers of our economy are set to close far sooner than any one of us would like. Our aging workforce and persistent outmigration of skilled labour challenges our available labour supply while our cost of living continues to rise faster than the national average. Our communities still suffer from high rates of crime and substance abuse, systemic issues born of the legacy of colonization and intergenerational trauma.

I know these are not the words of "sunny and happy days" nor hopeful optimism that some of my colleagues would prefer we occupy our time speaking in this Chamber. However, in my opinion, the time has come for rose-coloured glasses and double-speak to end. Without an ambitious plan to grow the economy, invest in northern potential, and realize the long-awaited opportunities present in our territory, future prosperity will always remain out of reach. Many MLAs have shared the same sentiments, encouraged bold moves and big thinking to solve the challenges we face together as Northerners, only to be met with the same old lines about sticking to long-standing processes and status-quo strategies that quite simply aren't working to move anyone forward.

Before the honourable Members of this House had the privilege of their seats in the Legislature, they were candidates in the 2015 election, and some served in elections before that. I can almost guarantee that each one of us ran on promises of reducing the cost of living and making life more affordable for Northerners. It was easy to make these kinds of promises, and has been even easier to overlook them. I believe this is the case with the current Cabinet who has made their fiscal strategy the driving force behind their leadership of the GNWT.

Departments have experienced cuts, band-aid solutions pasted together, all in an attempt to save cash or reduce debt, and this government stalled on a collective agreement for over three years, which nearly plunged the NWT into the first-ever public service strike affecting 4,000 employees of the territorial public service. Jobs lost, many workers put into precarious job situations, unsure of their future while the constant mantra of "fiscal restraint" beats down from upon high. Northern-owned and operated businesses deprived of crucial capital, while towering infrastructure megaprojects largely favour southern firms and gobble up the majority of government infrastructure dollars instead of investing them in local businesses, people, and communities.

It is no wonder that the people are frustrated, and we have lost some of the optimism that Northerners are so well known for.

Economic Outlook

Mr. Speaker, doing more with less isn't a workable plan if the right strategies aren't put in place. Restraint impedes the government's ability to function and undercuts the precious funding dollars that our people and their communities need to thrive and create new opportunities for themselves and their families. Austerity measures and belt-tightening exercises please the banks and our creditors but starve the economy. Cabinet spends a great deal of time talking up their fiscal strategy as the silver bullet to solve all of our challenges, but it has failed to create growth or prosperity over the last four years. The NWT has fallen behind. The Canadian economy has outpaced us and recovered from the bad years of recession. Through new develops in the mineral resource industry that will make our sister territories of Yukon and Nunavut the economic growth leaders for our entire country at 4.7 percent in 2019 and 4.5 percent in 2020. By comparison, the NWT is forecast to contract at an average annual pace of 1.6 percent between 2019 and 2025. That's right, Mr. Speaker, zero growth for the next Assembly and for the communities that we serve.

We have ignored these warning signs for too long. The time to invest in our future is now. When I turn my eye to the details of this current budget, I look to how it will get our economy back on track and counter the trend that has been persistent since Cabinet launched their fiscal strategy. I am reminded of a basic rule of economics that has served us all well since the Great Depression: When in a recession, governments need to invest in the economy; when in times of plenty, that is the opportunity for governments to get their fiscal houses in order, pay down debt, and make adjustments to spending priorities.

Mr. Speaker, these concepts are not rocket science; in fact, they are basic economics. In 2016, I characterized the fiscal strategy as an austerity measure. I maintain that position today, not based on my own personal opinions, but on the state of the current economy and the recession that is predicted to follow in the wake of this Assembly. We must do better and realize that the responsibility of our government is not only to manage its finances wisely, but to use our spending power to reinforce the prosperity of our territory.

The Honourable Premier and Cabinet cannot be solely responsible for the internal economy and financial health of the GNWT. They must also be mindful of their fiduciary responsibility to build a strong and stable economy outside of the public sector.

Budget Process

Mr. Speaker, the Regular Members have tried to bring this message home many times. In our unique form of consensus government, MLAs have unparalleled access to budgetary documents and processes that make us the envy of Ottawa, provincial backbenchers, and opposition Members alike. We call this the business planning cycle, and it is an opportunity each year to spend a few weeks reviewing departmental business plans and offering advice, praise, criticism, and, perhaps most importantly, providing the government with advance and intimate knowledge of the needs of our constituents and the communities that we represent. The recommendations of Regular Members throughout the business planning process are then supposed to be incorporated into the government's financial plans and used to improve upon the final budget documents.

Much work goes into this process. In this year, the 2019-2020 business plan review, approximately 450 hours of the legislative research branch were spent in advance of the review. Fifteen days of committee meetings were required to review the plans, which amount to approximately 600 hours of committee hearings for Regular MLAs. In addition to this time, the time of support staff required is approximately 30 person days, 240 hours plus about 60 hours of preparation for individual meetings. That is a grand total of 1,350 person hours.

The business planning process is one of the most significant parts of the job of MLAs on both sides of the House, and the entire process happens in secret and behind closed doors. The public only hears about it during times like these, when the budget is made public in the formal session and Members are allowed to speak to what has been presented.

After 1,300 plus hours of review, what role is the public in the budget process? None. Everyday Northerners have zero input into the budget, save the concerns brought forward by us, their public representatives. This is a choice, not a rule. The current Minister of Finance has refused to undertake any budget consultations since taking on the role in 2015. Previous Assemblies have done public budget consultations, and many provincial legislatures and the House of Commons continue to engage citizens in pre-budget consultations on an annual basis. We ought to be doing this as well and enhancing the public's right to know, either by producing a draft citizen's budget in plain language for public feedback or opening up the business planning process completely and allowing the broadcast of our committee deliberations.

This comprehensive and thorough business planning process is, again, a unique feature of the consensus system and ought to bring together the different viewpoints of the Legislative Assembly of the day to build a stronger, more inclusive territorial budget. In my experience, that has not been in case.

In 2016, Regular Members identified $6.5 million in unacceptable reductions proposed for the 2016-2017 budget. In 2017, Regular Members opposed reductions and proposed strategic investments for a total of $19.9 million in the 2017-2018 budget. In 2017, Regular Members identified $3.5 million in additional expenditures or reductions that they wanted cancelled in the 2018-2019 budget.

In all of these examples, the hundreds of hours of time spent in each business planning process failed to produce a mutually acceptable budget when first introduced into the House. Instead, what followed was weeks of departmental deferrals, behind-the-scenes negotiations, and on-the-floor questioning.

As I have said before, this budget process is notoriously secret. The government continues its practice of tabling two budgets a year and claiming surpluses, when, in actual fact, this year's budget is running a cash deficit of $7 million. This practice serves the interests of the big banks, but does not meet the standards of transparency that our government should be aspiring towards. The byzantine nature of how the government produces its budgets does not end solely in their presentation, but also to the aforementioned process inherent to the business plan cycle.

I have come to the conclusion that this process is less a feature of the openness and collaboration that is supposed to be a part of consensus government and, rather, is a means to limit public understanding of the most significant financial decisions of the territorial government. It is a way for those with power to ensure their vision is the only one that counts and differing opinions are left out in the cold, unheard and unresolved.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is no different. Regular Members identified a mere $2.4 million in both opposed reductions and new investment requests, including a new safe house pilot project, a budget for multi-sport games, addressing vacant public service positions, an increase to the Small Community Employment Strategy, and a plan to address the municipal funding gap.

In a budget that totals nearly $2 billion of spending, $2.4 million is a drop in the bucket, and yet, these concerns remain unaddressed. Instead, the Premier and Cabinet added more than $20 million in additional spending after the business planning process, based on the immediate needs of the GNWT and not based on the modest and reasonable requests of MLAs representing the wishes and ambitions of their constituents. We are still waiting for the Cabinet to act on our requests.

2019-2020 Main Estimates

This brings me to the detail of the budget before the consideration of the House. The 2019-2020 Main Estimates propose to spend $1.87 billion, based on available revenues of $1.93 billion. Total debt will increase to $1.1 billion, leaving $200 million of available borrowing capacity before the government hit its debt wall, and the Government of Canada will need to make a decision on our public debt provisions in the NWT Act. I know that the Minister of Finance has begun these discussions, and I thank him for that proactive step and look forward to being given more details in the future.

On the face of it, this budget proposes more status quo spending, with certain financial increases to areas of the public service that have only seen recent concern by the public and Members. Other spending commitments follow through from previous years' initiatives that involve multi-year funding strategies. It is neither good nor bad; it is more of the same. It continues to leave many issues unaddressed in a significant way, but maintains support for some priorities that we all share. It is status quo with some incremental change in the right direction, but simply does not go far enough. We have mere years to get back on track, not decades, so more ambition is needed to make the changes that will be felt throughout our communities and in the pocketbooks of our constituents.

For example, while I welcome the addition of $3.3 million to support new positions in Child and Family Services, I am concerned that this money has come without first completing a full cost accounting of programming and operational needs for the division. This is something that the Office of Auditor General has recommended for many years and still remains unrealized.

In the last budget, $600,000 of the appropriation for homecare workers was lapsed, unspent because the Minister could not staff the new positions. This amount of money is now being used for the proposed Child and Family Services positions, without the aforementioned plan called for by the Auditor General and by the committees of this Assembly. I do not want to see lapses again in the public accounts and a return to the treasury of these desperately-needed funds simply because the proper prior planning was not first put in place.

Housing remains a key issue for many Northerners, and I am pleased to see more than $100 million invested in the housing portfolio. This investment continues to exceed what most provinces spend per capita on their housing needs and shows the commitment of this government on making a difference in affordable and available housing. It is a sound investment, and I support it.

Investments in needed infrastructure continue in this budget, with an additional $2.1 million to support the capital budget passed last year. I support this investment, but I, too, as others of my honourable friends have mentioned, am concerned of excessive carryovers that limit the impact of these funds. This government must do a better job of following through on deployment of capital dollars in a timely fashion instead of lapsing and carrying over major capital projects year over year.

The budget address makes a strong case for economic diversification. Unfortunately, the budget does not. Diversified investment remains weak. I recognize and support the addition of $1.2 million to support tourism, the NWT Film Commission, and territorial parks. These are welcome new items, as are the continuing investments in the Great Slave Fishery.

However, government support of manufacturing remains unclear, with an incomplete strategy and no new funding announced. A wage subsidy for manufacturers and companies employing skilled tradespeople would go a long way to growing our labour capacity and expanding this sector of the economy, but that's not in this budget. Neither are strategies or plans to expand cannabis retail opportunities, provide capital to entrepreneurs, support strategic innovation in existing and new businesses or break open the rules on beer and spirit manufacturing that could compliment the local tourism markets in Yellowknife and other communities in the NWT. Support to these local industries may not replace the prosperity of the diamond mines but they provide resiliency when resource markets are soft and mineral exploration is flat.

On the topic of innovation and diversification, I applaud the government for bringing forward a costed knowledge strategy in the amount of $375,000. I still feel the strategy is too inward-looking and primarily focused on the government, but this is a complex area of public policy and must be properly understood before full investments in it are realized.

While there has been some movement on the knowledge economy, there is no new money for postsecondary education. I am not sure how anyone can be convinced that this Legislature is taking post-secondary development and a new northern polytechnic seriously when funding levels remain the same. The long demand for an adequate campus in Yellowknife to support our students is also not addressed in this budget. A planning study in partnership with the City of Yellowknife should be a priority.

Speaking on the cities, towns, villages, hamlets, and all of our communities, the municipal funding gap remains a major concern for our residents. With only $1.8 million added to the funding this year, there is still $33 million unaccounted for, and this figure does not take into account the roughly $2 million in inflation since the gap was first identified. Investment in our communities represents money that stays in the North and supports the health, wellbeing, and prosperity of our residents. This gap is the sole responsibility of the GNWT, not a broader national issue that needs the intervention of the federal government to take action. $8.2 million over four years in simply not going to cut it as inflation eats away at the value of those dollars. This government must commit to either closing the gap with new investment or rebalancing the funding formula to something the GNWT can support financially. There are no other options.

Northerners expect public services of the highest quality and client-oriented access to those same services. Many of our residents enjoy the support of government service officers or GSOs. GSO and single-window service centres are award-winning examples of smart, people-driven public policies that the GNWT is rightfully proud of, and I see no reason not to expand this important part to the rest of the public service in all of our communities. For several budgets now, Regular Members have called for a pilot project in regional centres and the capital of Yellowknife. Unfortunately, there is still no money in the budget for this pilot project, and Northerners living in larger communities are forced to navigate the sprawling GNWT bureaucracy without access to a single point of service delivery or single point for direction. This needs to change.

This budget is really the last opportunity for this government to live up to its mandate commitment of lowering taxes on small businesses. It is a great disappointment to me that no such tax cut is present in the main estimates. This amounts to a broken promise from this government and an incomplete mandate item. I acknowledge that the Minister of Finance has publicly stated that a tax cut isn't in the best interests of the business community, but I wholly reject that assessment. Has he consulted on this tax cut proposal? Has he spoken with the NWT Chamber of Commerce or Community Chamber of Commerce about reducing the tax burden on small business? No, he has not, and on this issue the Minister and I remain completely opposed. It represents a break from the mandate and makes me question many of the other commitments that the government insists it will fulfill in the next six months.

While there may be no tax break for small business, Northerners will have a new tax imposed on them by the government with its carbon tax initiative. We will have the opportunity to debate the carbon tax in the coming months, but I remain unconvinced in the government's design. The new tax is projected to raise $16.2 million, with $12 million being returned to taxpayers and industry in the form of rebates. "Revenue neutral," however, does not mean "cost neutral," and this proposal places the burden of the tax on the shoulders of everyday Northerners and their families. Nunavut and Yukon have chosen to accept the imposition of this tax from Ottawa, and the so-called "federal backstop" that has been enriched in recent months in rebates to become a far more generous proposal to individuals and their families than what this government is offering. I do not support this tax in its current form. Since doing more research and hearing from my constituents, I am skeptical if a carbon tax is even in the best interests of the NWT. The Honourable Premier and finance Minister have both shared this skepticism in the past, and yet have still signed on to impose the tax and been resistant to the suggestions of Regular Members on how to improve their proposal. I hope we can make changes to the proposal or even that the Minister will take action on his personal opposition to the tax by joining the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario in refusing this new burden on the basis of our unique Northern circumstances. Nearly anything would be better than the current proposal before us now that will further increase our cost of living, limit revenues, and growth opportunities for Northerners.

Conclusion

Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned about the priorities of this government, but, when it comes to this budget, I will be in support of it and I hope that we can make improvements. It doesn't go far enough, but we can't change course now. There's simply not enough time left in the term, and this money needs to get out the door to support our communities, support our public service, and get the mandate completed. Thank you.