Debates of March 24, 2004 (day 7)

Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 67-15(3): Highlights Of The Federal Budget

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, a couple of points. One of the reasons we are facing our fiscal situation is that previous governments were given one-time earnings and so on, and spent that money on important issues across the North. But now we’re in a situation where we don’t have the money to keep on going. We’re putting this money towards the deficit.

---Applause

And that’s what it’s identified for, as I stated in my statement earlier today. The amount budgeted of the $525,000, that’s the impact we think we’ll get in the Northwest Territories as a result of the $400 million the Member has highlighted in the federal budget address. So we’ll get approximately $500,000 of that money flowing to the North based on the formulas used now. That won’t affect the funding that was identified. That’s existing year expenditures. The money that’s identified here will be for 2004-2005. Thank you.

Final supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 67-15(3): Highlights Of The Federal Budget

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should just state that I was right next to Mr. Roland for the last four years arguing for fiscal prudence and I’m behind him all the way. It’s just that when we have to deal with raising taxes and giving a little bit of a million dollar break on a $50 million windfall, I think we have to reconsider that.

Mr. Speaker, my next question is on the $3.5 billion contaminated sites budget and to hear that 65 percent or so will be coming to the Territories. Could the Minister advise this House as to any further information as to how that money will be spent? What do we have to do as a government and such? Thank you.

Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 67-15(3): Highlights Of The Federal Budget

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my understanding from the work done on the federal budget is that $3.5 billion is over a 10-year period. Approximately 60 percent of that has been identified for the Northwest Territories. It will flow through the federal government. It is for the North. Let me correct that. It is for all of the North. So the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut are included in that, it’s not only for the Northwest Territories. We have, however, been highlighted in some of the detail, that whatever comes to the Northwest Territories will go towards the Giant Mine contamination area and Port Radium area. That’s the detail that we’ve seen. There has also been mention of DEW Line sites, but again, it’s over a 10-year period. It’s between all the northern jurisdictions. We’re not sure of the detail of how it will flow and when it will start flowing, but that’s the detail we do have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today could go to two different Ministers: the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, but I’ll start out with the question being directed to the Minister of Transportation. During my Member’s statement I spoke of the City of Yellowknife wanting to get an access road built from Highway No. 3 into the Kam Lake industrial park. I’m wondering, Mr. Speaker, where exactly does the Department of Transportation stand on this issue and what are the hold-ups? Thank you.

Minister of Transportation, Mr. McLeod.

Return To Question 68-15(3): Access Road Between Highway 3 And Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the second part of the question is fairly easy to answer. Difficulty identifying funding and sources is always a concern. However, we have been working on a fairly detailed, comprehensive plan for the Yellowknife Airport. As the Member knows, the Yellowknife Airport is a very important airport in the Northwest Territories because of its location and its operational capacity and capability. We have had discussions regarding the desire to extend the road from Highway No. 3 to Kam Lake, which would go through the Yellowknife Airport reserve that we have in place now. We have concerns also that the development taking place in the airport reserve is not very structured at this point and we’d like to see that streamlined. We’ve had discussions with our federal counterparts. We’ve had discussions with the City of Yellowknife and we are in the process of putting together a report which I’m not sure we’re in a position to table at this point, but I can get back to the Member with that information. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Supplementary To Question 68-15(3): Access Road Between Highway 3 And Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just wondering, given the fact that the Minister talks of the airport expansion being in the way of the access road being built, I’m wondering if maybe through you to the Minister, would the government look at perhaps making some land available a little further down Highway No. 3 to have this access road into the Kam Lake industrial park? Has that been on the table for discussion? Thank you.

Minister of Transportation, Mr. McLeod.

Further Return To Question 68-15(3): Access Road Between Highway 3 And Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve not had the opportunity to talk about the possibility of establishing or designing a road outside our reserve. I will commit to talking to my colleague, the honourable Minister of MACA. We’re also, I should point out, having discussions with the city as to responsibility of the city and what their role is in this. I can provide that information. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Supplementary To Question 68-15(3): Access Road Between Highway 3 And Kam Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just wondering, if both the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs and Minister of Transportation are going to be conducting some meetings and if this subject comes up to keep me apprised of that and perhaps they’ll let me know when and where these meetings are taking place. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Transportation, Mr. McLeod.

Further Return To Question 68-15(3): Access Road Between Highway 3 And Kam Lake

Mr. Speaker, we have done a considerable amount of work already. We have looked at some preliminary drawings and we have some designs that maybe at this point we would be able to share. I certainly will commit to keep the Member informed of our progress. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate some of the concerns raised by my constituents in regard to the new expansion of the Taltson hydro project being negotiated by this government. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask the Premier what options and consideration will this government give to the residents who will be seeking compensation and benefits from the new hydro developments on the Taltson hydro system that this government is currently embarking on?

Mr. Premier, Mr. Handley.

Return To Question 69-15(3): Taltson Hydroelectric Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the proposal to expand the Taltson is being proposed as a joint venture between the Akaitcho people, the NWT Metis and the Power Corporation. The partners have just begun to do consultations with the communities in the impacted area. Part of the consultation, certainly part of the consideration, is to hear what concerns people may have because of the impact of this expansion. My information from them is that they fully intend to look at the issue of impact benefits. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Villeneuve.

Supplementary To Question 69-15(3): Taltson Hydroelectric Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just wondering if this government is going to develop any plans that would address the levels of compensation and benefits of residents, some of whom would be more directly affected than others by this hydro project? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Premier, Mr. Handley.

Further Return To Question 69-15(3): Taltson Hydroelectric Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The proponents of this very good project, in my view, for the region will certainly be taking that into consideration. The project, when it proceeds, will have to go through the environmental review process. As it does that, no doubt it will go to the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, who have responsibility for looking at socioeconomic benefits. It’s through that mechanism and that process that the impact benefits and socioeconomic benefits would be looked at. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary, Mr. Villeneuve.

Supplementary To Question 69-15(3): Taltson Hydroelectric Development

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Premier for that answer. I’m just on my last question assuming that this new expansion project gets the green light. I just wanted to ask the Premier, as with any other project of this magnitude there are always issues and effects that are overlooked or not taken into consideration during the initial negotiation process. I’m just wondering if the government has any strategy whereas this government can assume full responsibility and give compensation to residents for adverse changes and effects that were not taken into consideration during the negotiation process, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Mr. Premier.

Further Return To Question 69-15(3): Taltson Hydroelectric Development

Mr. Speaker, this project is proposed as a joint venture between the Akaitcho, the Metis and the Power Corporation. The government will not take on responsibility or liability for the impact of it, but we expect that the joint venture partners, if the project goes ahead, would be required to take on those responsibilities that assume the liabilities for the impact of this. The government’s role in this project is to support it--I think it’s good for the region, I think it’s good for the Northwest Territories--and to ensure that it works to the benefit of most people. We believe it’s a good enough business deal that the proponents, if it moves ahead, will be able to take on the liability and responsibility. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to see that the Minister of Justice sits today because his return to oral questions certainly puts my question into proper context. On October 30, 2003, an interesting bill called Bill C-48 was reviewed under the Natural Resources of Canada Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. The intent of the bill was to attract industry on private lands and further allow deductibles by industry on Crown lands, Mr. Speaker. So my question is to the Minister of Finance. Would he be willing to have his department do further studies to see if this form of taxation can be implemented in the Northwest Territories so that aboriginal groups or companies can use this type of taxation to invest into social and economic programs? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Return To Question 70-15(3): Self-Government And Taxation

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, at the present time, though many of the aboriginal groups now are working towards self-government status, they do not have the ability for tax regimes at this time. There are ongoing discussions with the Department of Finance in the area of tax sharing of when these self-government agreements come into effect. So for the time being, there’s not that avenue. As a government we’re looking at all the options we can put forward in securing enough revenue to provide programs and services for the residents of the Northwest Territories. So we will look at options brought forward and take them into consideration as long as we end up protecting our revenue base that we’re operating from at this time. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Allen.

Supplementary To Question 70-15(3): Self-Government And Taxation

Mr. Speaker, I’m quite surprised that the Minister won’t consider introducing this type of methodology to try to eradicate some of these problems. As we see, direct monies are flowing to aboriginal groups in many instances, as well as northern institutions. I’m asking the Minister again, would he consider in the context of this question introducing such a taxation mechanism to assist this government to see if they can cost-share some of the many expensive programs that we’re currently indentured to deliver? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 70-15(3): Self-Government And Taxation

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the area of our tax bases, one thing, as I stated, is that we are in negotiations and discussions with aboriginal groups that are on the verge of having self-governments established in their jurisdictions. We are also discussing our tax-sharing arrangements and seeing how far we can do that. As a government, we are interested in hearing from the groups and Members of this Assembly to try and enhance our situation. A form of that can be tax incentives. If we can use tax incentives to increase and stimulate investment in the Northwest Territories that’s something we will look at, as long as we don’t lose the revenue we have that would end up cutting our programs again, whoever would have that. If it’s an aboriginal government we need to ensure they have enough revenue to continue those programs. As the GNWT we have to ensure we have a solid revenue base to continue the programs and services that we have. We are looking and would look for options that would be available to us to try and enhance what we have and work with the aboriginal governments to ensure that they can provide programs and levels of service at the levels that would be adequate. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Allen.

Supplementary To Question 70-15(3): Self-Government And Taxation

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recognizing that as an ongoing issue between the aboriginal governments and our territorial government still requires us to form some form of partnership arrangements with our aboriginal governments in support of trying to introduce taxation that would be beneficial to our residents. I’m asking again, why is it such a difficulty to see if they would support such an initiative that would be very cost beneficial to our territory? I’m going to ask the Minister, in repetition to my first question, is he willing to have his department do some further studies to see if that can be applied across the Northwest Territories in the context of both private and Crown lands? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 70-15(3): Self-Government And Taxation

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Member has raised this issue prior and referred to Bill C-48 and, as a result, I had asked for that information and we’d brought it to the department to have a look at the scenarios that could come out of it. The initial scenarios would cost the government in its revenue base. We’d have to see what kind of development could occur. As I stated, the exercise we’re going through and will continue to go through is that we don’t have enough revenue at this time to maintain the level of services and programs that are existing. We’re looking at options. If there are initiatives that come forward that can protect the base as we have it or, in fact, aboriginal groups and governments as they become established could use those tools to enhance their level of services we’d gladly look at those. As I stated, we are in discussions now with the negotiators that are involved in the self-government discussions for their regions and looking at possible tax arrangements. Thank you.

Final Supplementary, Mr. Allen.

Supplementary To Question 70-15(3): Self-Government And Taxation

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for replying to my questions. Quickly, in a similar context, can you make a distinction between what the Tlicho taxation agreement applies to the overall process of what would be so different from what I am asking the Minister? Thank you.

Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 70-15(3): Self-Government And Taxation

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Tlicho agreement, number one, would have to be signed off and agreed to with the federal government. Once that is done, a number of things would happen and we are working already to ensure that when that timeline comes upon us we have agreements in place. There are discussions now on tax arrangements. Part of what would happen, and the scenario we see, is that we would…The federal government is involved in these discussions as giving tax room to the self-government group. Once they have that tax room from a GNWT perspective, we would see potentially some tax room going to the aboriginal group as well. Along with that would come the expenditure that is being made on behalf of the citizens. So that tax room would come with responsibility and some burden with it. So there are negotiations going on now. There are ongoing discussions about net fiscal benefit for those groups, the same discussions we are having with Ottawa right now in trying to ensure that we end up getting an actual benefit. So we are looking at options, trying to work with the groups to ensure that we have the appropriate levels of services and revenues to cover those services. If what Mr. Allen has discussed allows that to happen, we will be glad to do more work in that area. In our initial look at it, it doesn’t seem that it would provide that for us at the existing time, but we will look at investigating it more if we can get more detail on how it would work. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions this afternoon are for the Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development. They concern the cleanup of the Giant Mine site. An issue that I believe has been out there since last year was a stall in discussions between our government and DIAND on responsibility for the surface cleanup at Giant Mine. I understand there are difficulties there with jurisdiction and potentially financing. Could the Minister advise on the status of our discussions with DIAND on responsibility for surface cleanup at Giant? Thank you.

Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, Mr. Bell.

Return To Question 71-15(3): Surface Cleanup At Giant Mine Site

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all let me say that I think this budget was very favourable in terms of contaminated sites. The last budget, if memory serves me, identified $500 and some odd million for cleanup of contaminated sites. It was short-term funding. I think this furthers that commitment. It is roughly ballpark. I think the same types of dollars per year, but it is a 10-year commitment, and there has been an indication that something like 60 percent of it will be spent in the North. I think that bodes very well for the NWT. I think even in the backup to the budget an indication that Port Radium, Giant Mine and DEW Line sites have all been identified. I think that is good. The funding hurdles that we have had seem to be stabilizing. I think that this can be put to good use. It is important that we stay on the federal radar and make sure that our contaminated sites make it to the top of the priority list, and it sounds like that is taking shape.

We still do have some jurisdictional issues with DIAND related to the surface cleanup at Giant. We had discussions about a framework for this cleanup, and I think it has been DIAND’s position in the past that they wanted to bundle surface and underground together. We have always felt that the two shouldn’t be confused and that the federal government had exclusive responsibility and jurisdiction for the underground liabilities. So we are still in those negotiations. We are spending money, GNWT money in this current year, on surface cleanup, but we continue to have this dispute over jurisdiction. Thank you.