The committee held hearings in Aklavik, Fort Liard, Fort Resolution, Fort Simpson, Katlodeeche First Nation, Sachs Harbour, Wekweeti and Yellowknife between August 17th and September 5, 2006. Following the initial Yellowknife hearings, the committee members split into northern NWT and southern NWT groups in order to visit as many communities as possible within the time available.

The committee recognizes that the timing of the consultations in late summer made it difficult for many people and organizations to participate, and is considering other options for the future. However, the low turnout at some of our community hearings did not prevent us from having stimulating and productive discussions with those people who did attend. We also received a number of written submissions from people who were not able to attend in person. The committee is satisfied that we have heard a broad and representative range of views and strongly believes that the pre-budget consultations continue to be a relevant and worthwhile exercise which will continue to improve with time.

We would like to thank everyone who took the time to make presentations to us or to send us written comments. A list of their names and organizations is attached to this report.

As MLAs, having the chance to see other communities and meet each others' constituents helps us to do a better job when we make decisions that affect people across the territory. We would, therefore, also like to thank all the communities we visited for making us feel welcome and for helping us get to know them better.

From the beginning of the 15th Assembly, our committee has looked for ways to give members of the public a meaningful opportunity to influence the government's business plans and budget. In the past, we do not think enough people and organizations have had a chance to tell MLAs about their priorities and views of how government should spend its money, Mr. Speaker.

The government's budgets are not made public until February. By this time, it is too late to make major changes, and even minor adjustments can be difficult to fit in. However, the work on the budget begins several months earlier. Standing committees get their first opportunity to see and to question potential cuts, new spending and other budget changes when they review the government's draft three-year business plans. This takes place over a two-week period in September when there is some possibility of making changes, Mr. Speaker. Committees use this time to discuss government-wide issues with the Premier and Minister of Finance, and then meet with the Minister and senior staff of each department to go over the draft plans in detail.

Governments are often compared to large ships that take a long time to change course. As we did in last year's report, we would like to caution that many of the issues raised demand long-term solutions and are far beyond what can be addressed in one year's budget and business plans. However, Mr. Speaker, we would like to assure the public that the course is slowly changing and that participation in pre-budget consultations is helping to make that happen.

As Finance Minister Roland advised us, "the results of last year's consultation process were useful in identifying a number of specific areas of concern, not simply with respect to budget development, but also in terms of program and service delivery."

In September 2005, Members had the opportunity to ask the questions and raise the issues we heard during our first pre-budget consultations as we reviewed individual departmental business plans with the Ministers and senior staff. In the following months, Members continued to raise issues such as support for front-line organizations and workers, the need for affordable, accessible, adequate housing, and energy conservation. The timing did not allow for major changes to be made for the 2006-2007 budget, however, we expect to see more of an impact on the 2007-2008 budget that will be introduced next February.

As we went through the September 2006 draft business plan review, we were able to use what we heard this year to reinforce with Ministers positions we have taken earlier, and to introduce new ideas. The issues raised during the consultations will continue to be reflected in statements and questions by individual Members during upcoming sessions of the Legislative Assembly, in future reports by standing committees, and in the debate on the budget that will happen next February and March, Mr. Speaker.

As committee members, we will continue to do what we can to influence the government to align its plans more closely with what the public is telling us, and to encourage the government to keep going where it is already heading in the right direction. We look forward to working with the government over the remainder of our mandate on longer-term approaches and strategic investments toward addressing the issues identified and achieving the goals set for us.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to pass on the report to Mr. Braden. Thank you.

Speaker: MR. SPEAKER

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Bill Braden

Great Slave

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Lafferty. What we heard - committee's general comments to the report, Mr. Speaker.

The focus of our second annual pre-budget consultations was the cost of living. The high cost of living was one of the concerns we heard about the most during our 2005 hearings. It includes the cost of essentials such as housing, food, childcare, electricity, and fuel.

The GNWT already spends about $128 million, or roughly 13 percent of its total budget, on subsidies to help reduce the cost of living, including public housing, income assistance, and fuel and power subsidies. The GNWT has said that while subsidies may be a necessary interim measure to manage the cost of living, they will not be sustainable in the long run and do not encourage the efficient use of resources.

The GNWT has suggested that longer-term solutions are reducing energy, utility, transportation and communication costs; increasing market development and competition; increasing employment and income levels; and reducing government program costs.

To get the discussion started, Mr. Speaker, we asked people the following questions:

What are people in your community doing to lower their own energy and utility costs by conserving? What would help them use less fuel and power? Have they heard about the Arctic Energy Alliance and its programs?

Do you support government investment in more highways and bridges, hydroelectric projects and high speed Internet to lower costs?

Would people in your community be willing to harvest or grow more of their own food, and, if so, what government support would help?

What businesses are available in your community? What, if anything, should the government do to help start up local businesses and/or cooperatives? Are the business development programs the government has now working? Why or why not?

What could the government do to lower its own costs?

The committee agrees that simply continuing to expand subsidies is not a sustainable way of helping people to manage the cost of living. We are also aware that until the government is able to secure a fair funding arrangement with Ottawa and establish new revenue sources, its ability to increase overall spending will be severely limited.

During our consultations, Mr. Speaker, we did hear many requests for more program dollars. However, we also heard ideas that would not necessarily require more spending by the GNWT, but that might, for example, require the GNWT to play a coordinating or lobbying role on behalf of residents and communities. People also brought forward several suggestions for modest strategic investments that would help people to help themselves and pay off in the medium to long term. The committee believes it should be possible to follow up on at least some of these ideas within the current fiscal climate.

Mr. Speaker, the committee also heard that the government can free up more program money and make better use of the resources it has by looking for savings and efficiencies in its own administration and by ensuring that the programs and subsidies we do have are fair and are getting to the right people. The committee is especially concerned that the GNWT is failing some of our small communities, Mr. Speaker, by not ensuring that critical programs are delivered as intended to the people who need them most.