Debates of March 24, 2004 (day 7)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is to the Minister of Finance and it’s with regard to his statement this afternoon about the federal budget. Mr. Speaker, from the information that we have been provided with, it is my understanding that our government will be receiving $7.5 million next year extra, but there’s more in the next five years that amounts to about $74.4 million. On top of that, we’re getting a one-time break of $50 million, which by my calculations is about $124 million. Could the Minister advise as to whether or not this is new money? I understand, at least not the $50 million, but $74.4 million is already on the books. We’ve expected it to come, but it is growth money. It is new money that we’re getting from the federal government. Is that not true, Mr. Speaker?

Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the amount identified for territorial formula financing will be in the area of $7.6 million for the 2004-2005 year and that is built into our estimates. In fact, even for 2005-2006, the $9.2 million, those numbers are already built into our forecast of what we were working with as a result of our meeting with the Finance Minister in February. The $50 million that I referred to is due to putting off the rebasing exercise on our tax effort for the 2004-2005 year, which gives us a one-year amount. That’s not new money. It would have been taken out. They’ve agreed to put that process on hold and have our officials work on the tax-effort portion of our formula. Thank you.

Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m trying to find a way to simplify these figures so the people who are listening to us can understand it better. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this $50 million is money, call it a break or the federal government not asking us for something that they were going to ask us for, but in the end it’s going to have a positive impact on our deficit situation. My understanding is that while we were expecting a $47 million deficit for this fiscal year budget, with this new $50 million break, whether it’s on paper or real money, we’re not going to have to have that sort of deficit. So it is a positive in that aspect and my question, Mr. Speaker, I’ll just make short. The process that we have been engaged in over the last week has been painful. We’re trying to cut costs where we can and we’re told that it’s going to get worse in the next two years because we’ll have to cut $20 million extra over the next two years. Is there any way for us to get a little break on this and be able to do some things that we need to do now that we have extra money, at least on paper? 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, taking the example the federal government has set, this government intends to be prudent with the money that we do have and not going forward with the rebasing exercise gives us a $50 million impact for the 2004-2005 year and will be put towards our deficit. That’s our intention with that money. Thank you.

Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m sure we’ll have more chance to debate on that one. I do understand that we need to be prudent and we don’t want to spend every penny that comes our way, but I think it is something that we need to talk more about.

Mr. Speaker, my next question has to do with the announcement of $400 million for immunization programs by the federal government. We in the NWT just did an immunization of youth and I believe we approved a supplementary budget or special warrant in the amount of about $800,000. Can I just ask the Minister what sort of impact this new money, I think it’s $525,000 for the GNWT, will have on that budget item? 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, 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.