I am particularly taken with work that was done in Norway, the fact that they set up a fund in legislation that’s politically tamper proof. It’s not tied to consolidated general revenue. The parameters of what can be done to it, how it can be done are very clear. The money is kept separate, and all the petroleum, oil and gas revenues go into that fund.
There are other ones to look at. Alaska and Alberta are two. The biggest one in the world is Abu Dhabi, which is almost $800 billion. The one in Norway is about $380 billion. So there are things we can learn. We want to set up the best one, tailored for the North, which, I would suggest, we would want to have set up in legislation so that, in fact, it is separate and politically tamper proof, but that is a discussion we have yet to have.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
My questions today are for the Premier. On September 29 it came to our attention that on August 22 the GNWT proposed a ten year partnership agreement with the federal government in which the two governments would cost share and determine priorities for a $1 billion investment in the economic infrastructure of the NWT.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the Premier to tell me when he and Cabinet developed the proposal, and given the importance of devolution and resource revenue sharing, why did he not engage with and discuss the proposal with Regular Members prior to making the offer to the federal government?
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.
Mr. Speaker, when I first announced that we’d be prepared to put devolution resource revenue sharing on the back burner, I got some negative feedback on that process. We had ongoing discussions with regional aboriginal leadership and in fact looked at the opportunities when we had meetings with the Prime Minister. I’ve had meetings with the Prime Minister to talk about looking at other options, because the option that was on the table, which Members are fully aware of, was not something we would consider to be adequate here in the Northwest Territories.
Also, Members know that I’ve talked to him a number of times, trying to get a deal with the federal government on, for example, the Mackenzie Valley Highway. So putting those together, looking at an infrastructure plan, it’s a framework that’s been put out there, floated out there, and we’re working on trying to keep that door open. Of course, no discussions are happening at this time until we know what the results of the federal election will be.
I’ve informed Members, through communication of letters, to let them know of the proposal and the meeting with the Prime Minister. Hopefully, we’ll be able to give more detail as we see the results of the election and find out just where this will go.
Yes, I remember when it was suggested that devolution and resource revenue sharing were off the agenda. We all were obviously concerned, and we pushed for him to get it on, and it’s on. That’s good; that’s fantastic. What I’m talking about is a proposal that has now gone forward to the feds. We don’t know anything about it. We don’t know the details. We didn’t find out until September 29, which was 38 days after you made the proposal to the federal government.
I’m still curious, and this is going to go back to my first question. Why wasn’t this information on the specifics of this proposal shared with us prior to making that proposal to the federal government?
Just earlier in the Member’s statement I was told to put the sails up and get moving, and now I’m being told to put the sails down and park it until I get word by word discussion with my colleagues.
Yes, we should have gotten the information to you sooner. In this case, because of the time frame, trying to get all the pieces together in a sense of regional leadership, getting that piece, having the Prime Minister come up to the Northwest Territories and trying to fit it in the schedule, I didn’t have an opportunity to share that with Members. I guess I’ll have to wear that one, as well, on the process that we’ve been involved with.
The Member himself has said this may be the right process, the right thing and what we need in the Northwest Territories, but the process is bad, so maybe we should just stop and not move forward on this. So I’ve got clear signals from Members of the Assembly. We’ve got residents out there saying it should move ahead. We’ve got a need for more revenue on the table, and I’m trying to build a bridge to get to that location.
I’m hardly suggesting it’s time to take down the sails. I share my other colleagues’ advice: it’s time to get the sails up, and it’s time for us to move forward. What I’m simply suggesting is that when it comes to something as important as resource revenue sharing and devolution, it’s important to keep us all on the same page, which I don’t feel actually occurred in this case. I mean, I would like to know the details.
I guess the second question, since I really didn’t get the first question answered, is: when are we going to get the full description of what this proposal entails and what the benefits and the negative aspects of the deal are for us in the Northwest Territories?
Mr. Speaker, as I’ve written to Members and told them, this is a framework. There is not much more detail than what I’ve already given Members on the framework. It is an avenue to open the door for further discussion with the federal government. It includes a partnership among the federal government, the Government of the Northwest Territories and the private sector. I’ve given that to Members. We’ve been working on trying to schedule a meeting with Members. I’m open to when the Members confirm a meeting date. I believe we do have some time set aside here in the very near future.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to hear that. Given that we’re all supposed to be equal partners in working towards the best interests of the people of the Northwest Territories, I’d like the Premier to commit to working with the Members on this side of the House and providing us with timely, upfront information in the future when it comes to items such as resource revenue sharing and devolution, as well as any other big picture items that the government might be proceeding with in the future.
Mr. Speaker, Members make a point of how I haven’t communicated with Regular Members on quite a regular basis, and a number of examples were given. But we have listened to Members. We’ve approached Members with some solutions to some of the concerns that were raised. We’ll continue to do that — to work with Members to try to come up with the options.
But, Mr. Speaker, one of the things I need to do before going to Members is to see if there’s even any appetite from the federal government, in this case, for a solution. Otherwise, I’d be wasting Members’ time by coming and saying: here’s an idea; what do you think? And then I’d have the federal government say no to it. Right now the door has been opened, and we can have further discussion on this. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to continue on with the line of questioning that my colleague Mr. Abernethy had. It gets back to the cost shared infrastructure proposal that the government put on the table.
Going back to what the Premier mentioned on Friday, I can understand that they have to get on with things. They have to do things. Move and move quickly, I think were the words the Premier used. Again, I understand that. But you don’t develop a substantive proposal, a framework as he calls it, overnight.
I’d like to ask the Premier: who put the proposal together?
I hope I get most of the response here right, as I didn’t quite hear the last part of the question. But I’ll try and respond to what I did hear.
The work that’s been ongoing originally started with an opportunity to sit down with the Prime Minister. I had about 20 minutes with him to give him the idea that we needed to look at other options, to put on record with the Prime Minister that the deal that was put forward by Finance Canada during the last government and that seems to carry on through this government wasn’t satisfactory, that we were not prepared to go there, but there are other options that we could work on. At that point we felt there was enough uptake on the idea that there may be some other options, and we started putting some ideas together.
One of the other things that I spoke regularly about during my time as Premier for the Northwest Territories was about the Mackenzie Valley Highway. So I’ve put those two together as a possible option.
The best I can cobble together from the correspondence that was provided to Members and the timeline…. I think this framework was presented to the Prime Minister in Inuvik. That would have happened at the same time the Members of this Legislature were at the Gwich’in health and wellness camp just outside of Inuvik.
The question that I have: if the Premier, as the leader of our government, is going to make a substantive offer or a proposal to the Prime Minister while he’s in our backyard, why wouldn’t he at least tell us that he was doing that, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the meeting’s happening and the time frame we did…. Again, I go back to the fact that I needed to have an idea that the federal government would take this up and carry it forward and on that basis feel comfortable that we could proceed.
Notification that the Prime Minister was travelling up was rather short, and as Members were aware, trying to get some time set aside to actually have a one on one about the Northwest Territories with the Prime Minister was quite difficult. That doesn’t give any excuse to the fact that we were there. And, yes, at caucus I probably should have put that on the table and shared that letter with them before it went to him.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for that. I do believe that at the very least he had an obligation to tell the Members who were in Inuvik at the time that this was taking place. That didn’t happen, and that’s unfortunate.
From the time the proposal was made until Members were notified was, I think, 38 days. Again, I don’t understand why, if we’re making a substantive proposal like that, it would take 38 days to let Members know.
In his comments to me on Friday the Premier also stated that he was looking forward to getting together with the committee to go over some of this. Are we going to get the framework in its entirety or just what the government wants us to see, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the letter I sent to Members has what we have on the table. We can share all the information about how we came up with this number in the hope of having something further. I would rather do it that way than try to get into a process here and have the federal government decide: well, they’re discussing it there, and there’s no real commitment and no use having any further discussion. I’m ready to share all the information we have, and I believe we have given that to the Members. But we can go through it in more detail or have more questions at that point as well as to what we’ve put on the table and what we hope to achieve.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Speaker, it just gets back to my first question. I’m not sure if the Premier heard the end of that first question, so I will ask that one again. I’m just wondering: who put the framework together for the Government of the Northwest Territories to be presented to the federal government?
Mr. Speaker, the Executive and a number of the other departments that have the information pulled this together. We worked with a number of other people who had access and could give us information on times, and we pulled that together. But it was pretty well done internally on this one.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.
Mr. Speaker, just to remind the government that Nunakput has all the oil and gas to drill that proposed pipeline. To the Minister of Finance: will the Minister agree to consult with Nunakput residents and organizations before he makes revenue decisions?
Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, the work we’re doing will be brought forward, as I have committed to in the House, through the business planning process and further into the budget process, where there will be time for review and discussion. We have agreed to come forward and give the public the results of the round table and all the feedback we have received. That document is being worked on as we speak.
Mr. Speaker, he says he’s giving us enough time. I have a pretty big riding, and the travel times are out. I have to go travel for two weeks, so I hope he does give us enough time to present this to my constituents.
Mr. Speaker, we’re going to be timing the work we are doing. There are people working on it right now. We know the business planning is going to start in the middle of November. We would like to have as much of the information as we can have pulled together at that point to talk about what’s being proposed for 2009–2010. If I can refresh everybody’s memory, we are looking at year 2 of reductions, about $28 million or so.
As well, we are tasked and targeted with finding $10 million in new revenues. We will come forward with that work clearly laid out for the ’09–10 budget and the business plan. Further work will be laid out, but that will be for future years, in 2010–2011 and going forward.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier in regard to my Member’s statement and the Premier’s sessional statement.
There are certain sections of the agreement where the government shall involve the Gwich’in in any devolution process. I’d just like to ask the Premier: exactly what consultation has taken place today with the aboriginal governments in regard to this proposal?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.
Mr. Speaker, as the Government of the Northwest Territories 16th Assembly took office, we set up a new arrangement with regional leadership. We hold four meetings a year where the regional leadership as well as the Government of Northwest Territories can put items on the agenda.
We have been having discussions at that table about devolution and resource revenue sharing, and again this opportunity came up. I made a number of calls, because of the short time frame, to try to get as much of the aboriginal leadership as possible up to speed as to the letter I was presenting. In fact, I did speak with the president of the Gwich’in Tribal Council. I have correspondence with the president on, for example, the Mackenzie Valley Highway right up to the coast, so we have had a discussion.
We haven’t had a chance to meet face to face about the meeting with the Prime Minister and where we may be able to go from here. We are starting that process, and our next meeting, I believe, will be late November.
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Premier: exactly what is the price tag on this proposal, and what are we are talking about? Are we talking about a billion dollars or more? I think the number for the Mackenzie highway is somewhere in the range of $6 billion. What is the price tag on this proposal?
Mr. Speaker, the Mackenzie Valley Highway is not $6 billion, if I heard the Member correctly. We know there have been groups doing their work. For example, the Department of Transportation used, I believe, $700 million as the target; that is an old number. We know that the Mackenzie Aboriginal Corporation did some work. They talked about $1.7 billion, I believe, in that neighbourhood; that’s their number.
We haven’t progressed to that and looked at those dollar figures. What we’ve been working on is coming up with a framework that would see a continued partnership between the federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories: taking the revenues they take out of the Territories, and royalties, and putting them back into the Northwest Territories. So it’s a framework right now. We’re going to have more discussions, and we’re going to see if it even goes any further beyond having a commitment for more discussion.
Mr. Speaker, one of the most lucrative resources out there that the federal government owns is the Norman Wells oil field. They own one-third of the field. I would like to ask the Premier: has he discussed the one-third ownership of the Norman Wells oil field and basically used those revenues they receive from the ownership side of the field to put into these types of capital infrastructure funding projects? Has that been part of the discussions with the federal government?
Mr. Speaker, again, we have not had any real discussions with the federal government. I put a proposal on the table for establishing a framework, and that’s the area we’re discussing right now.
Prior to that, probably shortly after we took office and realized that the deal that was on the table was not going to be satisfactory for us here in the Northwest Territories, we started looking at options. We know the federal government has always considered Norman Wells an equity, not a royalty. We started tracking that to see if it, in fact, would be a way of trying to look at how the revenues can be transferred back to the North. It is part of a potential solution, and that has been on the table for quite some time in trying to gauge the federal government in that area.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Speaker, in response to an earlier question, the Premier mentioned that he did contact a few aboriginal leaders. I am wondering when he is going to contact all aboriginal leaders and, more importantly, have a briefing with Members on this side of the House so we can get an understanding of what’s in the proposal, what is being stated, so we will get a commitment from the Premier on when this will take place.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that I’ve given correspondence to the Members that gives details of what framework proposal has been put forward to the federal government. I sent that package, as well, to the regional aboriginal leadership. We are going to have our next meeting with the regional aboriginal leadership at the end of November, and we will be able to have a much more in-depth discussion in that area.
I have already committed to Members, and I believe we do have some time still set aside, to go over this item with committee members. Again, we’ll follow through with that commitment.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Mr. Speaker, in our style of consensus government I would like to ask the Premier: from where does he get his mandate to talk to anybody, let alone the Government of Canada, on devolution and resource revenue sharing?
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I got my mandate right from Members themselves in this Legislative Assembly when you voted for me as Premier of the Northwest Territories. On top of that, with a number of the issues we’ve put on the table…. We talk about the vision and goals of the Members of this Assembly, taking that and trying to pursue it. That’s where the mandate comes from, and that’s where I carry through with the business at hand.
Now, I know Mrs. Groenewegen herself has quite a number of times stated on record in this Assembly that she’s not been satisfied with the approach we’ve taken. But at the same time Members have heard, when I spoke to the fact of getting this position, that I wasn’t going to be about the status quo and that I wanted to push files forward. I have been trying to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I’m glad the Premier realizes that his mandate comes from the Members of this Legislative Assembly. When he embarks on a conversation with the Prime Minister or anybody else, he is representing us. That’s why it would be really good for us to know what he’s going to say to them before he says it.
Now, we did get a quasi-apology today here in the House as to why the Regular Members were not informed of this fairly significant proposal to the Prime Minister in Inuvik. It wasn’t like he hadn’t seen everybody for a long time. Everybody was out at the Gwich’in healing camp. He had just been there with Members; I wasn’t there personally. But there was unbelievably ample opportunity to share with the Members at that retreat — I don’t think there was a whole lot else going on out there — what he intended to go into Inuvik and talk to the Prime Minister about. So I don’t understand why the Premier doesn’t get it.
It’s fine for him to say that I don’t appreciate the approach. I’m not trying to be unnecessarily critical here. I just wish we could get the information before such large issues are broached on our behalf. I’d like to know: does the Premier think, going forward, that we can do better?
Mr. Speaker, I think in every scenario there’s room for improvement. In fact, I offered some opportunities for improvement from the last bit of criticism I had about strategic initiative committees. I got a response from the Chair of P and P on that. I guess that offer wasn’t good enough either.
The fact is that we are trying to do what we can. We have to at times make decisions to proceed in a timely manner to try to keep things moving. I will continue to do that. I’ve already said to a Member earlier that, yes, probably at that time I should have shared the letters we were prepared to give to the Prime Minister and the discussion that was about to take place. So I’ll wear that one as well.
