Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Sahtu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the principle of the Bill 42, we have been placed in our seats here by the members of our respective ridings and the community as a whole in subjects as sensitive as this one to increase a revenue stream to make efforts in reducing our gas emissions.
As my colleague from the Kam Lake riding mentioned, this is really a global community one to address the target set in the Paris Accord. I keep an open mind that I will look forward to engaging the community consultation process after the second reading of this bill to give the people a chance to voice their concerns to the bill aside from our own. Keeping an open mind, I will not take that privilege away from the people who put me in this position in the Sahtu, for example.
I have mentioned in previous discussions and presentations: take the average young or old or middle-aged trapper downtown Colville Lake. How would they be impacted to this additional tax, putting the gas in their snow machine to go harvest income in fur-bearing animals? I am willing to give that individual a chance to speak to the bill, give the proper documentation to the communities, let them, in collaboration with this government, make a decision that we think is fair to everyone in creating revenues for offsetting cost reductions with the consumption of, say, home diesel fuel, for example, or non-automotive in purchasing energy-efficient appliances.
I think everybody would agree: we live in a high-cost part of Canada. We have a formula that is set, a fixed income. We are trying to broaden our benefits based on a set income. We have said all along in the Premier's sessional statements, a number of times, 32 percent of the revenues is contributed by industry. We have to be mindful of industry's presence here. I was very encouraged to hear the industry thinking and stating this is a good tax in the reducing of gas emissions into our atmosphere.
It really is a pan-territorial initiative. I am willing to support going on the road with this bill and giving the people the proper information so they can make informed decisions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.
Marsi cho, Mr. Speaker. I cannot support anything that would increase the cost of living for the people of the small communities. The people I represent are natural people who go out and they hunt. That is how they supplement their income. As everyone knows, we have very low incomes in the small communities. When an elder asks a young hunter to go hunting for them, their responsibility is to pay for the gas. Then the young person does all the work, goes out on the land. The further away the caribou is moving, the more costly it gets for the gas for the young person to go hunting.
Even if there is a tax rebate attached to the gas, or just a tax rebate inside the Income Tax Act, it is still going to cost money at the time the person needs to go hunting. It is not going to be that, sometime after income tax season, the individuals get a rebate and that becomes something that can be then turned into the gas they had already paid extra for to go hunting.
For me, I am thinking about: what would my community want? Tomorrow, when they pour gas into their vehicle, gas into their machines, snowmobiles, and whatnot, at that point, do they want to pay extra because they might get a rebate or they will get a rebate sometime during the income tax season? When you are hungry now, you can't wait for income tax season to buy the food that you need.
What they need to do is to not pay the extra as a tax on the gasoline. The cost of gasoline is high enough. Sometimes, the elders have just enough money to buy just enough gas to be able to get somebody to hunt for them. The hunters do it because they, too, can hunt for themselves at the same time at the expense of the elders. The elders do it because it is a lot more efficient for them to have caribou meat, moose meat, whatever it is that they are hunting for, muskox. It could be a variety of things.
The communities I represent, all four communities, rely on caribou. The fact that there is a reduction in the numbers with the caribou and the caribou seemed to either have disappeared or moved further east, a lot of the people and the elders say, "A lot of the caribou have moved east or have joined other herds." It has become more difficult for them to access caribou.
Then on top of that, to tell them that they will have to pay extra at the pumps. I am saying: it doesn't matter to them whether they get a rebate sometime in the future. That will go to something else. That rebate will be consumed by something else.
Also, the premise that the major reduction of greenhouse gas is going to be based on the Taltson project, I spoke against an expansion of Taltson here. Although I will most likely vote in favour of money that is going to be handed out to the territorial government from the federal government to consult with the people who are impacted by Taltson, I still think there is a lot to be settled there. I mean, the Taltson dam wiped out a whole community. It wiped out two communities, actually. Very little was said about a place called Rat River, which had a few people who generally had family in Rocher River, the other community that was completely wiped out. You hear about, the elders talk about, there were so many muskrat on the shores that it looks like there is a hill sitting there, and I think an elder told me the other day that there were so many muskrats swimming down Taltson river that he thought it was a raft. That was wiped out completely.
It happened a couple of years ago, too, by the release of water during wintertime, when you release water in the wintertime. Although NCPC said there was no release of water, I do not think, naturally, they flood the river. I do not think mother nature would kill all of its animals on a river by itself. I think that is man who has done that, and I think that has to be settled, too. If we are going to put together a strategy that bases itself on Taltson river expansion and that is how we are going to reduce our greenhouse gases and that is our contribution, then we should settle with the people from Rocher River. We should settle with the people who are wiped out, forced to relocate, lost their way of living, became a lost society. I think that has to happen, but the bottom line is today.
For today, the most important thing is the increased cost of gas, and, for today, to put more cost on the elders, that is what will happen. It does not matter what it looks like. It does not matter what the Income Tax Act is going to say at the end, when we make those adjustments. It's the cost today that's important. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Mackenzie Delta.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't think any of us here would like to see a carbon tax implemented in our territory as we have the highest cost of living in this country, alone. Mr. Speaker, I know that some of the Members are not supporting this. Like the Member from the Sahtu, I would like to see this proceed. This initiative, the federal government actually, I believe, sees that the territory has a small footprint on the carbon in our country, and they are willing to work with us. What is being presented is a far better deal than what will actually be imposed on us if we do not support this. The bottom line is that what is the best deal for my riding is what I will support, and this by far will be less impact on the cost of living in my riding. My constituents are paying in the neighbourhood of $1.92 per litre. We cannot afford it. Even 5 cents makes a big difference, and that is what we are talking about with the cost-of-living offset, and I think that that would be less impact on the residents in the Mackenzie Delta and for all people of the Northwest Territories. So we will let this proceed, and we'll get all of the information that is actually to this and make the right decision when it comes to third reading. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have heard everybody here talk about it, and I appreciate that the Government of the Northwest Territories has reached out to the federal government to work on a deal for heating fuel so that it's not going to have an impact, but we are still going to have an impact on it because we are going to have to pay for the transportation costs here. I am not going to reiterate everything, but it's the cost of living. I have listened to my communities, and I have heard the concerns about gas. It is an issue. We do not have to go on a road trip to hear it. We have heard it in the House here. We have heard it in Members' statements. We have heard it. Ministers have heard it through our correspondence with them. It's going to be an impact on cost of living, so, right now, the way we have it right now, I cannot support this. It's about the small communities. It's about the people there. It's about the people who we are supposed to be representing, and so, right now, I cannot support this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Nunakput.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like my colleagues from the Mackenzie Delta and the Sahtu, my region, we are very rich in natural gas resources, and we have yet to develop that. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that, in the future of the territory, the Inuvialuit will come to that. The cost of living is the highest in my region and territory, also the cost of transportation, and to see aviation fuel being exempt from things like that as well as anything to bring down the cost of living, Mr. Speaker -- consultation is very important, especially with Indigenous groups. When we look at the number of bills, there is a huge number of bills that are going through this legislature and this Assembly. I think what we need to keep in mind is we need to continue with growing capacity within this legislature to bring those forward so that our Members are informed and we are able to make educated decisions. Sometimes I sit here and I see some of the decisions that we make on both sides. Sometimes, from where I sit, they seem uninformed, but maybe there is something that I am missing, as well. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see this go forward, and I would like to encourage the Government of the Northwest Territories to involve the Inuvialuit and all of the other Indigenous groups across the territory, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Deh Cho.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the principle of the bill and mainly because here in the Northwest Territories we live in a vast and remote part of Canada, and, of course, the cost of living is very high. Recently in the media, it was brought to the public's attention that, our income support, the cost of income support is increasing, with more of our people depending on supplements from this government to put food on our table. So how could we rationalize adding more of a burden on the average people in the average communities the North? It just boggles me. So, for those reasons, I will not support it. Mahsi.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government is opposed to any kind of tax, but this is one that the federal government, in their infinite wisdom, had decided that they were going to implement, regardless. So our challenge was to try to mitigate the impact that it was going to have on people across the Northwest Territories. Our folks at the department went across the Northwest Territories. They listened to people. They understood that a tax was coming. They did not like it. Everybody is opposed to a new tax. That is why this government has in our four years done very little as far as raising taxes in the Northwest Territories. People have said that they want the least impact on themselves as possible. Now, I am sure Members opposite have heard those concerns, and it's always good to stand up and say, "Well, I am opposed to a new tax." Well, I am opposed to a tax, as well. The federal government is going to implement it. There have been a couple of challenges. We will have to wait to see. What this does, this gives us the tools we have to try to work to mitigate.
I have provided some information to Members opposite, some briefings that we have had on the cost to people in the Northwest Territories had we used the federal backstop. The federal backstop: $922.59 cost on the average family; the NWT approach the carbon pricing: $356.92; that is a $753 difference, so you want to tell the people of the Northwest Territories that, "Yes, we like the federal backstop so much. It is going to cost you $700 more a year, but we are going to go with that." Is that what you are telling them? Or as a couple of Members so wisely said, "Why don't you take it on the road. Let them tell you that themselves and see what they say."
We claim to hear the voice of the people in the Northwest Territories sometimes, and there are times we can't over the sound of our own voices, so let's not decide what is best for them. Let's give them an opportunity to decide for themselves. I think we worked very closely. We showed a lot of leadership on this. We have had other jurisdictions actually using or wanting to use our approach because they think it is one that is a little more fair to them. Aviation fuel. We worked with the federal government. They exempted that. Great. Heating fuels, diesel, propane, natural gas. Our approach is zero. Their approach is $435.95. I mean, I can understand the Members' concerns, of course. I mean, I have heard a lot of concerns. We want to do our bit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which is all fine. I think that was the overall goal of the Pan-Canadian Framework and the Paris Agreement, but our challenge here in the Northwest Territories is how we are going to mitigate the impact that it is going to have on our folks here.
I have given you some numbers. Part of what we are criticized for sometimes is our lack of communication. I have to agree there. I mean, we should have communicated a lot of this information better to the folks out there. Then they can get hold of you and say, "Hey, my MLA is not too bad. I don't like a tax, but if this is going to mitigate."
We don't know what is going to happen on July 1st. As I said before, there are a couple of challenges that are being taken out there, but I don't want to play catch up. I want to make sure that we are prepared so, when it comes, our people are not feeling it, and using the federal backstop is not good for our people. Not at all. Not at all.
I have given you the numbers, and again, I think there should be an opportunity for people out there to tell you how they feel about this, recognizing the fact that the federal government again in their infinite wisdom plan to implement this regardless, and what we are trying to do for the people of the Northwest Territories is mitigate the impact. Otherwise, it would cost them a lot more. We don't like taxes, but we are trying to do what is best for our people, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, a discussion like this, I think, requires a recorded vote.
Masi. To the principle of the bill.
Question has been called. There has been a request for a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.
The Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for Sahtu, the Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Yellowknife South.
Masi. All those opposed, please stand.
The Member for Hay River North, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh, the Member for Nahendeh, the Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife centre, the Member for Deh Cho.
All those abstaining, please stand. The results of the recorded vote: 10 in favour; 8 opposed. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Bill 42 has had a second reading and is now referred to a standing committee. Second reading of bills. Minister of Finance.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River South, that Bill 43, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, be read for the second time. This bill amends the Income Tax Act to make changes to non-refundable tax claimed by multi-jurisdictional individual tax filers, including changes that restrict the Northwest Territories' pension credit to the Northwest Territories' residents, and changes that allow co-pension and dividend credits to be claimed by Northwest Territories residents with business income earned outside the territories. This bill also amends the Income Tax Act to provide a cost of living offset as a mechanism for recurring carbon tax revenue to Northwest Territories' residents. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is order. To the principle of the bill. Member for Frame Lake.
Nice try. Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to be nearly as long on this one. I am not going to oppose this bill. It does serve a number of public purposes, including allowing for pension credits to be earned by residents and so on, so and it is simply enabling legislation in terms of allowing for a cost of living credit to be used. I don't really have anything to oppose on this bill. I wish that there were some stronger public reporting provisions tied back to how this is going to be used to report on rebates that are tied to the carbon tax, but I don't have any difficulty with this bill. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
I will now call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of committee? Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee would like to consider Tabled Document 322-18(3), Main Estimates 2019-2020, with the Department of Legislative Assembly. Also, Committee Report 13-18(3), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on Bill 31, Northwest Territories 911 Act, and Bill 26, Statistics Act, and Bill 31, 911 Act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We will consider the documents and bills after a recess. Thank you.
---RECESS
I will call Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, we have agreed to consider Tabled Document 322-18(3), Main Estimate 2019-2020, looking at the Legislative Assembly, which begins on page 1 of the document. I will turn to the Speaker for opening comments. Mr. Speaker.
Masi, Mr. Chair. As you know, we have entered the final year of the 18th Assembly, and this is the last operations budget from my office prior to the general election and the selection of a new Speaker in the 19th Assembly. It has been a distinct honour and privilege to serve as your Speaker, and I hope that I have met your expectations in terms of presiding over your debates in a fair and objective manner.
The Legislative Assembly is seeking an operations expenditures appropriation of $22,443,000. This represents an increase of $1,653,000, or a 7.9 percent increase from the 2018-2019 Main Estimates.
Mr. Chair, while this is a significant increase, this additional funding is needed every four years in order to conduct the territorial general election 2019 and for preparing and moving on to the next Assembly.
During this time, your Legislative Assembly has worked to improve communications to reach all peoples of the Northwest Territories. We have taken steps to bring our proceedings, and also the work of committees, to all of the regions of the Northwest Territories in all of our official languages. I will have more to say on that matter shortly, Mr. Chair.
My office has also been working to educate and raise awareness of our system of government and the profile of the Legislative Assembly through the development of two educational videos, enhancement of our annual report, the Mace Outreach Program, youth parliament, and improvements to our website, particularly with respect to committee operations.
This will include providing the funding needed by Elections NWT to undertake the next territorial general election. I would note that the funding being requested by Elections NWT for the 2019 general election is the same level of funding that was approved for the last general election held in 2015. My thanks to the Chief Electoral Officer for the proactive measures that she is undertaking to improve voter engagement and control costs through innovation.
Mr. Chair, we have also begun the important work to increase the representation of women in the Legislative Assembly. A special committee has been struck to examine and provide recommendations on how to achieve this in the years to come. Funding remains in the 2019-2020 budget to complete this important work, and I look forward to tangible results stemming from the committee's work and recommendations in the next election.
During the last sitting, the House took the important step of enacting the Ombud Act. This budget includes funding for the establishment of this office. It is my hope that you will appoint the Northwest Territories' first ombud during this sitting and that the full act will be ready for implementation by the fall of 2019.
Colleagues, this summer, in partnership with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I will host a first-of-its-kind conference in Canada. I have invited Indigenous Members of Parliament from all of Canada's federal, provincial, and territorial legislatures, as well as some from other Commonwealth countries and the United States, to meet in Yellowknife this summer on and around National Aboriginal Day 2019. The purpose of this conference will be to explore the unique challenges that Indigenous Members of Parliament face when working in what are, essentially, colonial institutions.
The conference will explore the tensions that Indigenous Members often experience when attempting to govern in an adversarial environment, compared to the more consensus-based style of system that they are more accustomed to. It will also explore the compatibility of Indigenous representation in our Parliaments with the inherent right to self-government and whether and how we should change our public institutions to be more reflective of Indigenous culture and traditions. I invite all Members to join me in Yellowknife for this exciting conference this summer, around June 2019. We have an excellent line-up of panellists and keynote speakers, and the reception from around Canada and the world has been outstanding so far.
Colleagues, earlier this year the languages commissioner submitted a report to my office with thoughtful and important recommendations to improve the services that we provide to Members and the public in all of the NWT's official languages. It should be no secret to Members that this is an issue that I am passionate about. Of all the public policy challenges that we face as elected Members, there are few that are as urgent, and as important, as the preservation of our languages. Future generations will judge us by the actions that we take, or fail to take, to save these languages and their link to our cultures. We have a closing window of opportunity to act, colleagues. Once our languages disappear, they are gone forever.
The time has come for bold action from all corners of government and society to turn the tide and change the path of history. The budget before you for adoption today includes a tripling of the Assembly's languages budget to not only implement the recommendations of the languages commissioner, but to go much, much further. This summer, the Assembly will host a language symposium to develop a common set of parliamentary terms in all of our languages. I am fluent in my language, the Tlicho language, yet I still rely heavily on such English terms as "bill," "point of order," or "prorogation." As leaders in this House, we need to set the example for the rest of the territory in terms of language use. We can talk and talk and talk about language revitalization, but until we start to walk that talk, nothing will change the current path we are on. A road or a hospital that does not get built next year can still be built the following year; not so much for our languages. When they are gone, they are gone for good.
I want no part of that legacy. The increase in languages funding this year is not the end. It is my hope and my commitment that, in the years ahead, the Legislative Assembly will have a fully functioning languages bureau to not only support the use of all languages in the written and spoken records of this Assembly, but to live up to the spirit and vision of the Official Languages Act put in place by our predecessors in this House. Our languages should not be "nice to haves." We should not be satisfied with throwing a token word or two of our Indigenous languages into a committee report or a tabled document. The time has come to stop paying lip service to the preservation of our languages and start investing the resources needed to stave off their extinction. I have made it my passion and my mission to speak predominantly in my language in this place, in this House, and I encourage other Members who are fluent in their languages to do the same. They are only equal in status to French and English if we treat them that way.
Colleagues, in closing, I feel obligated to correct the public record with respect to MLA compensation. A recent CBC news article suggested that Members of this House are planning to vote themselves a 20 percent pay increase in the upcoming fiscal year. This is blatantly false. In an age when the term "fake news" has become part of our common vocabulary, it is unfortunate and irresponsible that our public broadcaster has been unable to resist the temptation of "gotcha" journalism and the needless sensationalism. Colleagues, Members of this Legislative Assembly have not voted themselves a pay increase in 20 years, despite recommendations to do so from independent compensation review committees over the years. The 2019-2020 budget continues to hold this line by budgeting no more than a cost-of-living increase, as provided for in the legislation. The increase in the Members' compensation budget for 2019-2020 are related to the transition costs that always come in an election year and are consistent with the recommendations of this and previous years' independent commissions.
Mr. Chair, I will conclude by thanking all Members, my colleagues on the board of management, and the Assembly staff for their contributions and their effort in working towards the efficient operations and delivery of quality services for the Legislative Assembly. This concludes my opening remarks. I am pleased to respond to any questions that Members may have. Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you have witnesses you wish to bring into the Chamber, so I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses into the House. Mr. Speaker, you may take a seat at the witness table. Mr. Speaker, please introduce your witnesses for the record.
Masi, Mr. Chair. I have with me to my right, Tim Mercer, clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and to my left, Darrin Ouellette, director of Corporate Services. He is back again. The last time, we said it was the last presentation, but he decided to stay with us for another year, so we are thankful of that. Masi, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I remember wishing him farewell, and here he is again. Welcome back to the witnesses. The total department can be found on page 5 of the document, but, as always, we will consider the activities first. There are five activities under Legislative Assembly. The first is expenditures on behalf of Members, and this is found on page 9. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the expenditure category on page 9, there is an increase of $696,000 in the area of compensation and benefits, and I am wondering if the Speaker or his staff can provide a breakdown of how that money is allocated. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Speaker.
Masi, Mr. Chair. Part of the difference is we started paying to Members' pension. For the last 20 years, we haven't been paying to Members' pension, similar to across Canada. Most or all legislatures pay into Members' pension. We have been fortunate with a great economy over the years, but now, just since last year, we started contributing towards that, so that is part of that cost. Also, another cost is the transitional allowance for Members. Every election, we allocate upwards of six individuals who could be either retiring or losing their seats, so we have to subsidize for that. As you know, 2015, we had a turnover of 11 new Members, so we fell behind on our funding allocation at that time. We want to be prepared for that, so those are just some of the differences. However, Mr. Chair, I will allow our director of corporate services maybe to elaborate more and provide more detailed information. Masi.
Thank you. Mr. Ouellette.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, as Mr. Speaker referred to, transitional costs, in that are the two allowances, the transitional allowance and the retaining allowance. We make assumptions that, during a transition to the next Assembly, there could be up to six Members who would not be returning for various reasons. That is $432,000 that has been budgeted in that area. There was also the cost-of-living adjustment, for a total of $107,000 in that particular category. Then, there are also the allowances that have now become taxable. We have reallocated that budget into the compensation and benefits area, and that was for $157,000.
Thank you. Ms. Green.
Thank you for the information. I want to just ask a further explanation for the taxable benefit. Could the Speaker or his staff provide a little more information about the taxable allowance and its current status? Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Ouellette.
Currently, effective January 1st with the federal Income Tax Act, the previous non-taxable allowances that Members received, in the range of $7,600 per year, now became taxable on January 1st, so that is the status of it. They are taxed now, and Members receive the gross tax on a bi-weekly basis, and, at the end of the year, they will get a T4A to provide taxes there. At the time when we drafted the main estimates, the thinking was that these would be taken from payroll source, and so the budget was reallocated to this area. That thinking has since changed, and so it will be a return back to the accounts payable, the expenditures category, for allowances.
Thank you. Ms. Green.
Thank you for that explanation. The other thing I wanted to ask is: the finance director already mentioned that, in 2015, there were 11 changes in the House. The budgeting has been for six Members, so what is the premise of the six Members, and what happens if it does turn out to be another large turnover, in terms of funding? Thank you.
