Michael Miltenberger

Mr. Speaker, we have engaged in a discussion. We’ve put out a discussion paper. We’re talking about options. There have been no decisions made. There have been a number of taxes listed. The documents laid out taxes that were there for consideration. The press clearly put a particular spin on it. There is a misunderstanding in some quarters that all these taxes are being basically agreed to.

Nothing has been agreed to. We’re looking at other revenue options like those that have been suggested by other Members. For example, trying to grow the population and bring more wealth, bring more people...

Mr. Speaker, that is entirely in keeping with the comment I made earlier. If we can focus on consumption areas and try not to put too heavy a burden on the income of individuals across the board but make it more focused on areas where there are consumption issues, where there are choices, then that would be better.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve embarked on a revenue options discussion, not the tax increase option discussion. We met; we had a massive circulation and mail out of the papers looking for feedback.

The round table was very productive. It brought together a very interesting group of Northerners from organizations across the North that don’t normally spend a lot of time together to talk about the issue of revenue options. There’s very strong commitment to the North and building the North. There was no unanimity when it came to the issue of, clearly, taxes. I’ll be coming forward with a report...

Mr. Speaker, one of the proposals was a potential $30 levy on all southern air travel. But, clearly, especially with the mines right now, there is a socioeconomic agreement, bilateral in nature, that we are working with. The Minister of ITI is engaged in those discussions, and the issue of the fly in/fly out, having workers in the North, is at the top of the list to assist us.

The estimates are that if we can work closely with the diamond mines, then we can start bringing, we believe, up to 100 workers a year, to have them, in fact, start living in the North, because there is going to be enough...

Mr. Speaker, I don’t have an exact figure, but it would be millions of dollars. The Member for Kam Lake had some numbers that he has used, but it is a significant amount of money. It is leakage south that we want to try to capture and keep in the North.

WHEREAS the Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, 2008–2009 document has been tabled in this House;

AND WHEREAS the supplementary appropriation document requires detailed consideration;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, that Tabled Document 75-16(2), Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, 2008–2009, be referred to Committee of the Whole for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, clearly — clearly — that’s an option: for the government to buy into business. Of course, first we need to have the money to do the investment. We have a limit here of $500 million, but we are looking at all the options, and we want to be as creative as possible. We’re interested in setting up, as the Members pushed for it since the last Assembly as well, things like a heritage fund that will allow us to plan for the future. Clearly, we want to look at all the opportunities that are out there, but we are limited by the funds and resources we have available, in addition to trying...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Friday, October 3, 2008, I will move the following motion.

Now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, that Tabled Document 75-16(2), Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, 2008–2009, be referred to Committee of the Whole for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time I will be seeking unanimous consent to deal with this motion today.

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to working with the Members, the committee members. There’s been a clear signal that they would like to have Members on the refocusing committee because of the issue with boards and agencies, because of the program review issues. We’ve laid out the work to date. Funds have been voted. There’s been a five member staff that’s been put together. We’re working out a work plan. Clearly, this is a complex issue as you start looking at analyzing and doing zero based reviews and program reviews. There are some very big pieces of government out there. We look forward to...

We will come forward with the full package for committee’s review, what we think is viable and what we think is not. We’re going to come forward with the options in terms of being able to, we believe, grow the population in a modest but significant way that’s going to add to our economic base over time.

In addition, we’re going to come forward, as Members know, with year 2 of the reduction exercise. We’re prepared, and we’re going to have that full discussion with committee, looking for their advice and feedback.