Can the Minister tell us when he can provide cross government details on budgets and what is being planned for the various departments under the energy initiatives? When can the Minister provide some of that detail?
I can advise the Member that with regard to rebates for wood stoves we’re increasing the rebate to $400 from $300. As well, for wood pellet heating furnaces we’re increasing the rebates to $700 for pellet furnaces and $1,000 for pellet boilers.
As far as government departments, all government departments are involved in developing energy conservation measures. We will be rolling them out as part of the business planning process.
Final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister tell us if the government has had a serious look at the viable alternative of just simply providing wood stoves to people who cannot afford wood stoves? People who cannot afford wood stoves cannot get to the point where they’ll be requesting the rebate. Is there any alternative for those people who can’t afford to buy the stove upfront so they can never access the rebate?
We recognize that the high cost of energy is one that is going to affect all of the people of the Northwest Territories. We will be rolling out a very extensive program that is currently under development. Any of these kinds of suggestions will be undertaken.
I can add that the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation is looking at those kinds of suggestions as to how we can help people who can’t afford to buy wood stoves but would like to utilize them. We are taking all of these into consideration as we go forward. We’ll be bringing them forward as part of the business planning process.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Premier today. It gets back to my Member’s statement where I was talking about this new proposal the Government of the Northwest Territories put forward to the federal government that was in addition to the devolution and resource revenue sharing negotiations that were ongoing.
Everybody knows that the Government of the Northwest Territories has been trying to get a deal with the federal government for the past 20 years. This may or may not be a good proposal that the government has put forward, but all of a sudden, to plop a massive — and the Premier even alludes to it in his sessional statement as “substantive” — proposal to the federal government into the mix…. I’d just like the Premier to advise Members on this side of the House when we might be able to get a look at the proposal that was made to the federal government.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member is quite right. The fact is that we have over many years and through many Assemblies tried to come to a conclusion from what was one day called a Northern accord to devolution and resource revenue sharing.
We know that the last offer on the table was one that, when working with the aboriginal governments and organizations, they were not supportive of. Some groups are saying they want to do their own work first or come up with a settlement in their self-government discussions.
But through the regional table that we’ve established during the life of this government, we’ve been having ongoing discussions about the devolution and resource revenue sharing file. Prior to sending the letter out, I was able to call a number of the regional leaders to inform them I was putting a letter before the Prime Minister and at the same time had forwarded a letter on to Members. We’re trying to set up some time now to sit down with Members and go over more of the file that we’re waiting to bring to conclusion.
I appreciate the challenge that the government finds itself in, and I know the pressures on our infrastructure and the need for more money. You can’t debate that. But the fact remains there was an impasse. The government has put a new proposal on the table to the federal government without first consulting the Regular Members of this House — duly elected Members — and I’ve heard from other Members that perhaps aboriginal governments across the Northwest Territories weren’t consulted on this either.
So, again, let’s be up front with each other. Let’s put the deal on the table before we take it to Ottawa. I’d like to ask the Premier when we’ll be able to see this proposal.
The fact is that at times we have to move and move fairly quickly. When we became aware that the Prime Minister was going to be visiting our jurisdiction, we felt that was the opportune time to put before him and his staff the idea of establishing a framework. That is a step we have taken, to come up with a proposal that is a framework to try to cross the gap that is now in place with the existing deal on the table.
Again, I called a number of the regional leaders. Those I was able to speak to I let know that this was the intention. We forwarded letters on to them in that regard, and we’re going to also, at our next meeting, have further discussions on this. I believe it would be in November at some point, at our next regional leaders meeting.
I’ve got, I believe, some time scheduled now, or we’re working on the scheduling of a meeting with committee members to go over the framework. But it is just that. It is a framework to try to cross that gap that is now in place.
I think part of the problem, from what I understand, in the past and the impasse that was there had to do with this fiscal capacity cap.
I’d like to ask the Premier: is the impasse that’s currently at play the capacity cap, or is it this new proposal the Government of the Northwest Territories has put on the table?
First of all, I should say that in my correspondence with the Prime Minister I feel we’ve got an opportunity to continue the discussions as we look at this framework we’ve put on the table.
Now, with this framework that may be a way of bridging them. In fact, I would say that is still using the money that is coming out of the Northwest Territories, so I think that is why the discussion has been open and remains open. Hopefully, shortly after the election we will be able to move on that along with the Members of this Assembly.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Speaker, I don’t disagree with the Premier. Obviously, we need to do something. If they are moving forward with this, that is good. I just think it would be nice to know on this side of the House, especially with what I have seen and heard. It’s a billion dollar cost shared infrastructure agreement with the federal government.
Maybe I could ask the Premier this question: where is the $500 million coming from in the Government of Northwest Territories to cost share with the federal government’s $500 million?
Mr. Speaker, let’s not put numbers out there that are not factual at this point: $500 million. You talked about cost sharing, but a percentage has yet to be discussed of what level, as well, from the Northwest Territories. I talk about a partnership among the federal government, the GNWT and the private sector. There are a number of things we need to work out. It is early days on that, but we felt we needed to put that on the table and get that recognized before a call for an election happened. Then we’ve got ground to work with. So this is a framework we’re working on.
As I said, I’d be prepared to sit down and work on getting the time, together with the committee, to go over some of this. It is early days, and we felt we needed to get a marker down and establish this. As we have heard from Members of the Assembly on numerous occasions, as well as the public out there when we talk about our budgeting situation, we need to step up and get something done. Here is that opportunity, I believe, which we have created.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on this theme of devolution and resource sharing negotiations. I want to start by just noting that where there is a vacuum — that is, no information — false information will be developed. So it would be nice to get those vacuums filled.
My first concern is aboriginal governments. Like it or not, we do share governance with them. Which aboriginal governments and claimant groups were contacted by the Premier, and what was their response in this round?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.
Mr. Speaker, the initial contact was by phone with me and a number of the leaders. I left a message for others I could not get hold of. We follow up with a letter just as we are sending our package out. We’ve got some correspondence, as well, at the regional table we set up; we’ve been discussing the file ongoing.
I know, for example, the Akaitcho group are saying they’ve got their own process. They do not want to be involved in this, in fact, and wish us to not have any further discussions on devolution and resource revenue sharing. The Sahtu is undergoing some of their own work and looking at the numbers we provided. I believe their work confirmed, in fact, what our numbers were stating.
We have other groups that are prepared to move on it; for example, the Gwich’in, the Inuvialuit. The Sahtu have taken a step back from their original position. The Northwest Territories Métis have also been supportive of this initiative. The Deh Cho is a group that is again saying they are involved in their own process. They want to complete that and feel they need to do that before they can support any initiative of the GNWT.
The problem is that if the Government of the Northwest Territories is dealing with all levels of programs and services in all the regions — whether it is health care, education or economic development — without additional resources, we’re going to leave self-government as they take over operations. When they do finally settle their claims, they’re going to take over operations that are burdened with a heavy load, and that’s the problem of continuing to wait.
Thank you for those comments. I want to state that I am the first one to recognize we have an extremely complex situation here, and a bull in a china shop is obviously not the right approach. We need to be very sensitive here.
Has the Premier assured these aboriginal governments that this process will in no way impinge upon their ability to negotiate their own devolution of resource revenue agreements as part of their self-government negotiations and land claim settlement negotiations?
Mr. Speaker, as past Assemblies have, this government also stands by the fact that we as the Government of the Northwest Territories will not interfere in the sense of what they negotiate for authorities from governments, whether it’s the federal government or existing programs and services that we deliver. We are involved in those negotiations. We will continue to honour those tables and work forward.
Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, whether it comes to the GNWT at a stage and then goes under self-government when those agreements are finally signed, those are all part of the process. I think we need to recognize the fact that we are not trying to take it over as the GNWT, to take it forever. We are trying to just bring that authority north, and then once the further self-government discussions are completed, the areas that were successfully negotiated would be passed on.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that when the Premier was Minister of Finance, he made a commitment to look into getting some of these windfall profits that are happening from oil resources of the Northwest Territories as the price of oil has soared. The federal government is now accumulating hundreds of millions of dollars, for example, from Norman Wells. Is that going to be in or has it entered into this process? Will that be profiled? Is this an opportunity to deal with that situation so we get some immediate gain here?
Mr. Speaker, the Member has hit on a very key area. I think that when we look at the royalties that are being taken out of the Northwest Territories right now in today’s existing agreements, we would say that those dollars could be flowed back through an infrastructure program to meet the needs of the Northwest Territories. That is the approach we are taking.
Now, the federal government has always stated that Norman Wells — the oil, the pipeline out of that community — is not a royalty; it is an equity. Well, we are saying it is money one way or another that flows out of the Northwest Territories. We need to work on that initiative together.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. A final short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you again for those comments. One last question: could the Premier outline the role he sees this side of the House playing and how he intends to involve us as representatives of the people in this process in a meaningful and timely way?
Mr. Speaker, through our whole process we have established, whether it is budgeting, finding new revenues, sitting down with committee to give ideas of where we can go…. Those options are there. In fact, as I stated earlier, I am seeking time with the committee to sit down and have more discussion about the proposal, the framework that has been forwarded. Hopefully, we will have that very soon, and we will continue with those discussions.
Now, there has been lots of discussion on the devolution package that has been on the table. It would be sort of an update of where that is, plus this idea of this new framework.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement yesterday I spoke about the need for this government to reduce expenditures. One area, in my view, that is ripe for picking some funds and removing them is print advertising.
The Minister of Finance yesterday was good enough to advise me that, yes, we do have policies that govern this particular expense. But I have to ask the Minister: has he done a cost benefit analysis of this type of expense, the use of print advertising, and what is the value to this government of print advertising?
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, clearly, the value of the printed word is very important as part of the way we communicate. The actual dollar figure, in terms of how much we advertise and what our printing costs are, I don’t have with me today. But I will commit to getting the best numbers we can for the Member.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank him for that. I wasn’t necessarily asking for a dollar value; I was asking for a value per dollar spent. I didn’t hear an answer to the question of whether or not there has been a cost benefit analysis done on print advertising. It is for me, I think, one of the methods of communication that is least effective. So I’d like to ask the Minister again: has there ever been a cost benefit analysis done on print advertising from the GNWT?
Mr. Speaker, over time there has been. There have been checks to see how we advertise jobs in different newspapers. There have been attempts to centralize that type of work to save costs, of course. There is great consternation at the community level among the community newspapers and regional newspapers when they get cut out of the advertising business.
Clearly, there is a pressure for us to communicate and consult with our constituents across the land. The tendency is, as we look at saving money, to say, “Let’s just try to advertise in the News/North, because everybody reads the News/North.” It leaves out things like The Hub, the Slave River Journal, the Deh Cho Drum and the Inuvik Drum. We have to balance it. This is not just a straight dollar issue; it’s an issue of how we get our message out and what value we place on that as well.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. I have to state my belief, though, that there is some advertising the government does that I see a value to. Certainly, advertising jobs and advertising for consultation is extremely valuable.
But I do take great offence at many of the print ads that announce a particular day, that announce a particular…. For instance, there’s a full page ad in one of the papers south of the lake that welcomed students back to school — ads proclaiming “Whatever Day” by the various departments. I have a problem with those, and I’d like to know from the Minister, in terms of an analysis of the print advertising that we do…. Yes, there are benefits to some and not to others. But has there been a consideration of removing those kinds of ads that do nothing, I think, in terms of efficiency of the government but simply glorify a particular department?
We’re going to be starting the business planning process, and Members will have an opportunity to comb through the plans of each department. We are looking for efficiencies; we are looking for savings; we want to control our costs; we want value for money. At the same time, we want to be able to communicate in the best way possible using as many local resources as we can. That is a discussion we’re prepared to have across the board so that there are no sacred cows, as it were, or Ministers or departments. We’re prepared to look at all that through the business planning process.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. A final short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for answering the question that was in my head. I’m really glad to hear that this is an area that is going to be considered.
I’d like to know, relative to the policies that he mentioned yesterday, whether or not they will be considered in light of reducing the spending on print advertising and if the policies will be evaluated for the value of full page ads advertising a particular day or welcoming kids back to school.
As I committed to in the House yesterday, we’re going to pull together the information. We do have policies as they pertain to print advertising for jobs and such. We’ll share that with the committee as we move forward into the business planning process and as we look at the upcoming business plans, which are going to contain expenditure reductions for the coming year. Then, yes, we can have that discussion. We can try to make sure that we give the clearest political direction as a Legislature as to how we think these dollars can best be spent and at what level of expenditure.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Speaker, in my Member’s statement I spoke again about the amount of money that’s leaving the Northwest Territories through migrant workers and industry. I’d like to pose my question today to the Minister of Finance.
With $330 million just from the migrant workers alone, there are lots of people, I believe, who continue to leave the Northwest Territories. I’d like to ask the Minister: do we receive any money from workers or industries who are working in the Northwest Territories?
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have a 2 per cent payroll tax, which was designed with the goal of trying to in fact be able to recoup some of the money that the fly in/fly out workers are taking with them as they head back to the other jurisdictions where they live.
Mr. Speaker, if the migrant worker is hired out of Alberta, for example, and the company’s home base is in Alberta, do we get 2 per cent payroll tax out of those workers?
Everybody who works in the North pays payroll tax, except for the self-employed. Then what we do is refund through the cost of living program to Northerners. So folks who don’t live in the North pay the 2 per cent, and that comes back to the government.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that. So if I’m to understand — and I thought I heard differently, that the migrant workers do not pay the 2 per cent…. But I believe the Minister just said that they do pay the 2 per cent tax. So that aside, do we receive any other monies from developments or industry on behalf of these migrant workers who work in the Northwest Territories?
Every worker who works for a wage in the Northwest Territories pays the payroll tax, including the migrant workers, as referred to by the Member. They take with them the rest of the pay they make, and they file their income tax in the jurisdiction where they reside, which is one of the major concerns we have, of course, as a Legislature and as a government: that revenue is not here. They’re not living in the North. They don’t have houses. They’re not paying local taxes. They’re not paying income tax, and they’re not supporting the northern infrastructure.
