I now call the Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of Committee? Mr. Beaulieu.
Mr. Chairman, the committee would like to begin the review of Tabled Document 1-18(2), Proposed Mandate of Government of Northwest Territories, 2016-2019.
The Committee will take a short recess and discuss the matter when we get back.
---SHORT RECESS
I now call Committee of the Whole to order. Committee, we have agreed to consider Tabled Document No. 1-18(2) titled, “Proposed Mandate of the Government of Northwest Territories, 2016-2019.” I will turn to Premier McLeod for opening comments.
One of the priorities set by all Members of the 18th Legislative Assembly is to improve governance through more accountability, transparency, and collaboration. The development of this government's mandate is the first step to achieving that priority and strengthening consensus government. For the first time in the NWT, we have tabled a proposed government mandate. The mandate explains how the government will advance the priorities established by all Members of the Assembly this past December. The mandate enhances accountability by producing clear commitments that elected representatives and the public can point to when asking questions of government Ministers. The government's proposed mandate enhances the transparency of the GNWT because elected representatives and the public can now better understand how the government gets from the Assembly's 25 priorities to a particular set of programs and services. Finally, development of the mandate has increased collaboration by creating a dialogue between all members about the best way to achieve our priorities. MLAs have helped Cabinet to focus, strengthen, and clarify our commitments. Overall, the mandate enhances accountability, transparency, and collaboration by having the debate about the mandate right here in public on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. Through the priority-setting process, all Members decided what was important to prioritize. Through this mandate, Cabinet is proposing how to accomplish those priorities in ways that are effective and affordable. The purpose of developing the mandate was to make strategic choices. All of us knew coming into this Assembly that our resources would be finite and that the economic climate would be difficult. The process of developing the mandate has allowed us as Members to have a conversation about what choices are most strategic and why, before we get into the business planning details of how much and how fast.
As a result of your feedback, we've added commitments to communicate to our residents the potential risks and benefits associated with various resource development options; strengthen our commitment to land use planning; expand pathways to graduation; acknowledge Housing First as a proven method to address homelessness; reflect the importance of the fishery to food security and our economy; prioritize mental health supports in schools; fully support the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; be clear about our commitments to resolving outstanding land, resource, and self-government agreements; work with the Government of Canada to reduce the cost of living by improving Nutrition North and lowering taxation; and advance the principles of open government by making the GNWT a better government. This mandate is responsive to the majority of views expressed in Caucus. It commits us to a course that is ambitious, but within our means. I welcome discussion and debate on the proposed mandate before ultimately putting the mandate to a vote.
Thank you, Premier McLeod. Do you wish to invite witnesses to the table?
Yes, I would.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses to the table. Premier McLeod, please introduce your witnesses for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To my left I have Mike Aumond, deputy minister of Finance and secretary to the Financial Management Board, and to my right, David Brock deputy secretary to Cabinet.
I will now open the floor to general comments on the tabled document. Mr. Vanthuyne.
I'm happy to have the chance to address this important mandate document and see the progress that we've made over the past couple of months. Members, we've all gone through the campaign trail and emerged from the other side. I found the months leading up to the election and the election period itself as a great opportunity to meet many of my constituents, to hear from them, and seek their input and learn their priorities. That has been important for me in developing and refining my own platform and to bring to the priorities in mandate conversation here in the Assembly. I know we have all done that same work, so I'd like to take this chance to thank everyone here for their hard work and contribution to the important work of setting priorities in developing the mandate. As a new MLA, this was a new process for me. On balance, I think it was a good way to set our course. In the interests of continuously improving the system, I suggest that as a Caucus we should have a discussion about the process and make suggestions for improvements for future Assemblies. Now that we have this mandate document, I'm looking forward to putting some meat on the bone, so to speak, reviewing the business plans and engaging in budget deliberations so we can start putting money where it needs to go to make these things happen. The one part of the mandate document I am not comfortable with is the “Fiscal Context” page. I'm not comfortable with our broad long-term statement of vision containing such a restrictive, temporary assessment of current economic conditions. I've addressed my concerns on this to Members previously, and I will elaborate on my concerns again in more detail when we discuss each section of the mandate document.
Again, thank you to everyone for your good and hard work over recent weeks. I look forward to further discussions and the opportunity to present a completed mandate document to NWT residents in the coming days.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. O'Reilly.
I had a very close look at the mandate over the weekend and tried to follow its development from the first draft to the third draft, and have a number of observations I'd like to offer today. I recognize this is a new process for everyone and that it was really intended to improve consensus government and build stronger accountability. I think it may be a bit scary to some to develop specific measurable commitments and deliverables for which you would be held accountable, but I guess that's what I had expected to see in the document. I want to start with some positive comments and thoughts, then move to what should be changed, in my opinion, and then some reflections on what should happen next time around, and then some conclusions at the end. The concept of a mandate document that builds from an agreed upon set of priorities is a sound one and the Process Convention on Priority Setting and Reporting from the previous Assembly, I think, was a commendable initiative to help improve consensus government, but the devil is in the details. I think our staff did a great job to document our individual priorities and recommend a process to reach a collective set of principles, which went very well in my view, although we ended up with too many priorities without a sense of what was really important. To be fair to Cabinet, there were some changes and improvements made to the proposed mandate during its review. Some of the most important for me were a clear commitment to completion of land use plans for all regions; adding in co-operatives and condominiums as eligible partners in energy efficiency programs; revitalization of the fisheries as part of building food security and lowering the cost of living; work that should be undertaken with Yukon and Nunavut on the Northern Residents Tax Deduction and Nutrition North; some specifics on what the open government policy might achieve; and a detailed section on reporting.
I want to move on to some areas where I think there needs to be some improvements. In terms of the process, Regular Members generally receive drafts of the mandate with not a lot of time to review them and, at least in one case, with as little as 36 hours to review it. In my opinion, that's not enough time given our busy schedules and I don't believe that's even in keeping with the process convention on communications. I spent many hours preparing detailed comments on the second draft. These comments varied from fixing typos and grammar to questions to seek clarification and recommended language for additions with some rationale. About 25 per cent of the basic grammar and typo comments were incorporated; the rest of my comments were apparently ignored. I believe I deserved at least some sort of an explanation, but never really got one. It's not clear to me whether my comments were even considered by Cabinet. The proposed mandate sets out, in my view, a set of vague and often unmeasurable objectives rather than specific actions, targets, or end points. For example, “capture opportunities” appears in several places in the proposed mandate. How does one measure progress or success on such a statement?
The document still contains errors or information that is outdated or not relevant. For example, the correct figure on the reduction in Territorial Formula Financing funding is no longer $33 million, but $9 million, as we understand it. The correct name of the Education Renewal and Innovation Framework should have been used. It's not clear why compliance with the new Financial Administration Act should even appear in the mandate, as this government should just follow its own laws. The language in the document should have been plainer or a plain language summary should have been included so our residents can better understand what we've actually agreed to do together. No public input or comments have been sought on the proposed mandate other than through the efforts of individual Regular Members.
A few reflections on the process, if I may: I think if this is to be done next time around, spend some time setting out the expectations for the mandate, including the form and precision of the document, and how Regular Members can have input and how Cabinet will respond, preferably with some reasons. Work jointly on an outline of the mandate and perhaps even one section to get a sense of what it should start to look like. Craft the mandate in such a way that there are measurable commitments, targets, initiatives, and actions. Reporting can provide reasons as to why specifics were achieved or not, but to prepare a mandate that is vague and without clear end points is not helpful for establishing accountability and not supportive of consensus government. Developing the mandate in an iterative fashion, trading drafts back and forth with Cabinet holding the pen on its own report card is a bit of a bizarre process. This document should be a product of Caucus with all the Members agreeing on the report card that will be used to evaluate the success of the government.
I'd just like to move on to some conclusions, Mr. Chair.
I carefully compared the mandate to the commitments I made during the fall election and the priorities I identified and set out on December 14, 2015 in this Chamber. I'll focus on the matters from my priorities that have, in my view, not been adequately reflected in the proposed mandate:
Specific commitments to expand or increase access to energy efficiency programs, including empowering local governments to create revolving funds;
Re-orientation of the NWT Power Corporation towards renewables and community energy self-sufficiency;
A public review of resource revenues to ensure there's a fair return to the public purse;
An independent regulator for oil and gas resources;
A coherent financial security system to prevent further public liabilities on contaminated sites;
A public review of the Heritage Fund to ensure a defined revenue stream and stronger public governance; and
A clear commitment for ombudsman legislation and an ombudsman office.
I made efforts in good faith to try to improve the proposed mandate through discussion in Caucus and in detailed written comments, but cannot support the document tabled by Cabinet.
I look forward to working with Regular Members in Committee of the Whole to make the necessary improvements that will allow me, and perhaps others, to support a mandate that achieves a greater degree of consensus and purpose as we move forward together. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Mr. Nadli.
I just wanted to take the opportunity just to say briefly in my language in terms of the topic of discussion at this point, just for the sake of our Aboriginal listeners. [English translation not provided.]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The mandate is essentially the agenda, or the work plan, of this government for the next four years. I support the mandate, the spirit and intent of ensuring that we have an agenda in the next four years in terms of addressing the priorities of the people of the NWT, ensuring that the families and individuals in our communities are well taken care of. That's basically the mandate that we have. Almost to a degree, it's a reflection of what we've come up with today in our efforts in terms of making the consensus government work. I see it as a positive step forward. It's an exercise that we have to routinely do to ensure that we do have some goals that we set for ourselves for the next four years on behalf of the people. The priority of the mandate, of course, and I'll focus on the big picture in saying that, too, as part of our constituency, we have some real immediate needs. Sometimes it's challenging to focus on the big picture, but at the same time when you have some very pressing and immediate needs, it's hard to focus on and keep focusing on the big picture, when there are struggles in the communities that we have to address. For those reasons I support this whole initiative, but at the same time, I remind my colleagues that we come from small communities, most of us, and geographically, of course, small communities are isolated. My hope is that, through this document, those small communities will not be isolated from opportunities. That along with the bigger centres like Yellowknife and Fort Simpson or Hay River, small communities will be still in the forefront of this agenda. I'm hoping to see that in the next four years. In terms of priorities, of course, just to name a few, there are small communities. There's need for jobs. We have some issues in terms of regarding youth. Housing continues to be a big issue. We need to move on and ensure that those priorities are met on behalf of the people.
Trying to draw at least some closing remarks, the mandate is of course developed through the efforts of everyone here, and, of course, it's based on our campaign, what we've heard from the people of the NWT. It's essentially the agenda for the GNWT, but it's being led by the Cabinet. At the same time, as Regular Members, we need to make sure that the public sector and the government officials that do implement this plan. That we all keep in contact keep the lines of communication open, for the better interest of the public to be served. What I'm saying is that while Cabinet would take the lead in terms of ensuring that those goals and the priorities of the mandate are met, we shouldn't lose sight that on this side, the Regular Members, that working relationship has to be strong and it has to be maintained. In the next four years, I look with forward to ensuring that happens.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Testart.
I think that to start off I'd like to thank all the colleagues and all the MLAs for their hard work on this document and for collaborating effectively to bring something complete to the table. That being said, there are several issues with this process that I think need to be improved upon. The mandate ought not to be a business plan. We have business plans for those. It ought not to be a budget document. We have a budget process for those. What it ought to be is a set of political commitments that are gathered together to form a concise plan that gives certainty to Members of this House and also members of the public to know what the government is going to do. I have said it before and I'll say it again, often many of our Ministers respond to the commitments made by the Government of Canada, and those commitments follow through from their election campaign. Most of those commitments are not made directly. They come from that election. People have certainty in what they're going to get from the Government of Canada because those clear, precise commitments were made, and people are looking forward to those commitments optimistically. We've heard it today in the House about how some of the social housing programs and infrastructure programs we’re looking to capture as opportunities can only be done if the Government of Canada holds true to its promises. That's what this document should be, and quite frankly, there's simply too many vague statements in here.
My colleague spoke previously to “capturing opportunities” as being mentioned many times, and there are just a litany of examples of some very good, clear statements about supporting certain things or implementing certain things, but not how much they cost, not how much they're going to make more resources available to communities or to governments, and actually commit to put things on the ground. It's all very vague and hard to measure. How do we hold a government accountable to see how many opportunities they've captured? That's a perfect example; that commentary was made multiple times and it continues to remain in the document.
What we have as a proposal is a very risk adverse document that wants to be realistic and play it safe. There are good reasons to do that, as to not raise hopes. Occasionally you can't fulfill everything, but you can present a bold and ambitious plan that gives people confidence, especially when our fiscal and economic circumstances are extremely challenging. The conversation today in our communities is one of, quite frankly, fear. Fear about the future and a lack of knowledge about what the way forward looks like. I would be hopeful for a document that would allow people to have those fears allayed. Unfortunately, there's more “hurry up and wait” that's produced by this. Really, what this ought to be is something that gives that certainty of moving forward. Perhaps you can't meet all your political commitments, but you can try and that’s part of the role of a Minister, to explain why things aren't on schedule and why things haven't been met. You have to take risks at certain points in the process. I do think that there's a list provided in the opening comments by the Premier that does show the document did change. Some of these items are more or less clarifications of some of the points that were in there, but that still shows change, so I do think there was a high degree of collaboration. But the other thing to think about is that this is a document that Cabinet is working to implement, and they should be the pens on this. They should hold to things that they think are achievable and that they think are things they can accomplish within their four years. It's really their mandate and we have tools like a midterm review and other things like that to hold them accountable. That being said, those commitments need to be measurable and clear, and that's still absent from this document.
Going forward to our successor Assembly, I would say that this needs to be primarily directed by Cabinet Ministers and the Premier. It can't be solely on the advice of deputy Ministers and departments. It really has to remain at that level, at that high level of political discussion and political commitments, and show vision and ambition, and give people something that's clear and concise and that Cabinet Ministers, as well, can take ownership of, and that Members from the other side of the House can take ownership of as well. And that shows a clear path forward. I think that's what we need to strive for in the future: To be clearer, more concise, and keep it at a level of political dialogue that is in as plain language as possible. There's ways to take hundreds of commitments and boil them down into five-point plans or three-point plans or four-point plans. There are ways to do that. Again, poring through this document takes some time, and there's no succinct statement that's very clear to the public about how things are going to move forward and how their lives, the lives of people that we serve, are going to be improved by implementing of this plan, and that's really why we're here. Those are the kind of longterm strategies and goals that should be implemented.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Are there any more general comments? Ms. Green.
I won't repeat the points that have been made by my colleagues, although I agree with them. This document reflects some of the major points that I campaigned on. The process has not been very gratifying. When the document was created, I thought that we had an agreement to make a limited number of very specific priorities for the Assembly, but it turned out that refining the document meant adding so that we went from five major areas to, I don't know, 137 subareas or something like that, and in the process what we lost was the ability to make SMART goals. What I mean by that is the acronym SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Timebound. Very few of these priorities fit into this framework of being a SMART goal, and as a result it will be difficult for us to show progress on the realization of this mandate. Maybe not coincidently, it will also be difficult to hold the Executive Council to account for what they have achieved or not achieved, because the goals themselves are phrased in such a vague way.
While I appreciate that there have been a number of changes made, I still feel that there were some changes that were never on the table. I guess to the point of trying to create an atmosphere of greater collaboration and consultation, I think it's worth remembering that consultation doesn't mean only “I discussed it with you.” It means that “I discussed it with you and you had an opportunity to influence the outcome.” You have an opportunity to help us change directions. I guess I didn't really feel that that was the case with this document. I didn't feel that it was a process of equals, but a process that was really led by the Executive Council and with us running behind. As others have said, while there are many good things in this document that are aspirational, there's almost nothing that can be measured, and I think that that is a failing of this document.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had faith in consensus government. When we talk about consensus government, it is exchanging ideas, listening to people, and hashing it out until you come up with a consensus to it. Not, “well, here it is, we'll bring it to the floor and we'll hammer it out here.” To me, consensus government is working together so we're here and now. To the credit of Cabinet, I appreciate the work you guys did to this. You guys did a lot of work and took a lot of time into it. I don't think you've heard everybody's comments or concerns, because we wouldn't be here if you did. I think we would have been able to pass the mandate as is, but right now I can't, as my colleague Mr. O'Reilly said, I can't officially agree to it. There is a lot of things in here that were part of the mandate from my election, and I appreciate that in there, but there's other things that weren't. I struggle with this whole process, and maybe just because I'm new. I was inside the government system and was able to work with it. I find that being outside the government system and being at the top of the heap or the political chair, we don't have the ways to deal with things. We get a wall blocked up, it's a bureaucratic answer, or it comes across that way. When I looked at this mandate, there were things put in there that should not have been in here. Like, the fiscal responsibility part of it. It's a mandate paper. This is what we're talking about. This is what we want to do: doom and gloom.
You know, I understand we're in a fiscal situation, but when we keep on hearing doom and gloom, why would anybody want to be living in the Northwest Territories? I'm a proud Northerner. I was born and raised here. I believe in the people of the Northwest Territories and I believe in the public service. However, if we're going to put up barriers and we're not going to listen to the Regular Members, it's going to be a long four years for myself. So in saying that, I hope we're able to move forward, be productive, and we can actually weather the storm and fulfill this mandate with the proposed changes that we are trying to get across.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I guess firstly, in my language, just briefly. [English translation not provided]
Mr. Chair, I look at this mandate as a guiding document for the government as we move to try to improve the lives of our people in the Northwest Territories. I think the intention of all of us in the room is for that to happen. I think that we have the government, the people, to do that. We're able to look at the more serious areas of government, the more high-cost areas of government -- for example, health costs -- and I think we're doing things in here that will lower health costs. I think this is what this mandate must do. It should lower the cost of justice and it should lower the cost of addictions across the Territories and lower the cost of education, improve our educational outcomes, improve our health outcomes, and improve our justice outcomes. I think that if we're able to achieve that with this document, this mandate, then I feel very positive to be associated with a mandate like this. I know that I've been looking at this probably for eight years and I've been saying the same thing during all that time, and that is, we need to have people employed. Now this document, if you look at it, and it looks at the ways that we're going to engage the small communities where employment is needed badly, we will see all those things happen, and I think it's something that I'd hope for. I know that we had never as a government gone through this type of intense review of the mandate. This is the third government that I've been in and for the first time we've gone through an intense mandate. It’s not everything for everybody, but I think it's a move in the right direction, and we agreed that after two years we would review the mandate. It'll be interesting to see how much of the mandate can be carried out by government and to see if some of the things that we hold dear to our hearts as MLAs are changing, that are improving, the things that we want to see improve.
I want to see the people in the small communities to become contributors to our society. Right now, there's so few jobs that most of the people are dependent on government, and even the people that are trying not to be dependent on government are having a difficult time just paying for the things they need to harvest, like gasoline, snowmobiles, and so on, to hunt and so on. These are some of the things I'm hoping can come as a result of this mandate, where individuals are able to improve their lives and improve the lives of kids. I would say that kids are not going to school in small communities. I will certainly be engaging the Minister of Education throughout these next four years for that. Just to see an increase of kids going to school because their parents have work would be a real positive thing. People have a tough time getting out of bed every day, sending your kid to school, and then sitting around doing nothing all day. Because that's what they're left with: nothing to do. We need to look at that. We have a section for the cost of living. Those are important things. But I think, either you help them pay for the high cost of living or you give them the ability to pay for it themselves. I'm hoping that this mandate, at the end of the day when it comes out in the wash and the government's carrying out the various portions of this mandate, it's going to give the people of the NWT that are not working the ability to find work and pay for their own things and not be dependent on government. The government is not always the driving force. It's the people that are the driving force behind the Northwest Territories. That's all I have to say.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Blake.
Just a few comments I'd like to make on our draft mandate here. As one of our former Members always said, we have 1,356 days left in the 18th Assembly.
---Laughter
That's referring to Mr. Miltenberger. He told me that last week and I just thought of that. A lot of good ideas we have here in our mandate. I'm hoping that, working together, we can accomplish many of these challenges that we have here in the territory, and I look forward to working with everybody here.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. Mr. McNeely.
As you all know, I'm one of the new Members here coming into this Assembly and the principle intent of the mandate, I really strongly believe in that directive: setting the goals set by the priorities identified by all representatives. To create a dialogue for people out there that we serve in all our ridings, let them know that we now have a plan. Here is a plan set out to try and achieve these. In reality, I don't think it's doable, but we have a document to start from, identifying everything from child development to creating and improving our economy to continuation of programs and services under our limitations. But in the view of the reader, once the document is publicized, we can probably come back to our constituency and say, “At the Assembly we have a vision. We have a plan.” It's not as if we are running in all different directions without any guidance of any centralized focus on priorities identified and having the input of all of us. It's based on that methodology and based on that principle, I respect the mandate itself. As said in previous meetings, we have measurables. We have a mid-term review to see how we're progressing. It's been several weeks now and it's been several times we had this on the agenda. I just look forward to concluding this so we can all go to work, and I look forward to implementing that with everybody around this table.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank everyone for all the hard work on the mandate and I know the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning has been working hard to make some changes. I look forward to moving forward and getting to work on the issues, as it's been a late election so we're left a little bit behind. We have a little bit of work ahead of us. I know I see some of the stuff on climate change and the environment, which I'm pretty fond of, as well as culture and education. I look forward to working with the Ministers in the smaller communities, as well as employment and the high costs of living. I just want to congratulate everybody on the hard work that they're doing and I hope that we can get to work on this as soon as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. Thank you, committee. Do you agree that we have concluded general comments on Tabled Document 1-18(2) and that we proceed to consideration of the document by section?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We will begin with the “Introduction” section. Do Members have any comments or questions regarding this section? I'm seeing no comments or questions. Do Members have any comments or questions regarding the “Fiscal Context” section? Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not seeing folks wanting to speak to this, so if I may, I'm going to make a motion, Mr. Chair, and I move that tabled document 118(2), Proposed Mandate of the Government of the Northwest Territories, 2016-2019, be amended by deleting the section titled Fiscal Context on pages six and seven.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. The document is being circulated. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Members, there is really only one part of this document that I feel doesn't belong. I feel that the “Fiscal Context” portion is not really appropriate for this document. This section was not developed in collaboration with all 19 Members. Instead, it was inserted after the discussion on priorities and after the first review of the mandate. The introduction of the mandate document speaks well to the goals and objectives of this government. The introduction speaks at length about collaboration, respect, and openness. It describes our government in the context of being socially, environmentally, and economically responsible for the greater good of the people. It speaks about these responsibilities being built by a strong consensus government. It talks about values and priorities of our people. It says that a thriving economy will provide jobs and help the government pay for programs and services. In summary, the introduction clearly supports what the mandate document is supposed to achieve on a big-picture, visionary level. But then the document switches direction to the fiscal context, a background component that reflects just a narrow point in time. Suddenly, in contrast to a long-term view expressed in the introduction, this section paints a bleak picture full of GDP percentages, transfer funding assumptions, infrastructure deficits, and past fiscal comparisons along with naming businesses, and such dreary language as “We can no longer afford the suite of programs and services we have been providing to our residents at the levels we have been providing them.”
Respectfully, in my view, the entire “Fiscal Context” portion has no relevance in this important document, and per the motion, I am proposing that it be removed. I believe the public already understands the fiscal situation we face. If it requires elaboration, then I suggest the Finance Minister can say as much to the public, as he has already been doing, or add it to the annual budget address. I believe the mandate document is a great tool for communicating our vision for the next four years and beyond. As such, it should embrace our overall goals and direction and should not be used for sending a fiscal context message that carries adverse undertones and only represents a small point in time. I look forward to an active exchange and the views of this important document. If I may, I would like to ask for a recorded vote.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Are there any other Members who would like to speak to this motion? Mr. Testart.
I would like to speak in support of my colleague's motion. When we are speaking of our overall vision moving forward, reminding people of some very specific point in time, entirely relevant statistics and fiscal challenges are not as helpful to a plan, a plan to move ahead. I would prefer, if we are going to speak to these challenges, that we do it in the context of the initiatives we are going to use to get around these, rather than focusing on the specific numbers that are representative of our economy in decline and challenges to our government. I would rather see those numbers reflected in how we’re going to get out of this. Again, that isn't done, and putting the section at the front of the document sets a tone for the rest of it that we have many things, but most likely it is going to be difficult to secure all of them. I appreciate that the intention of this is to be realistic. The intention of this is to provide a realistic sense of what's achievable, but this should be an ambitious document, and it should be designed, again, to correct these challenges, not to be mired in them. By removing it, we present a more hopeful and optimistic plan, and one that I certainly can support.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
When we first started to discuss the mandate, I had proposed some changes to this section to try to make it a little more balanced. I will give some examples of those. The focus, really, in the fourth paragraph: “GNWT has a fiscal problem that will require expenditure management.” There is nothing in this section that talks about efficiencies or new revenues. I would look for a much more balanced approach. There are a couple of other parts of this that I find objectionable. Another sentence here that says, “We should not take any actions that will decrease investment or increase the cost of living or operating a business in the Northwest Territories.” Changes have actually been introduced while we have been MLAs that will increase the cost of living, and I'll give an example: The electronics recycling fees. But that's for a specific purpose and it serves an end, and I'll support that. I believe all the MLAs support that sort of thing. That kind of a blanket statement, I find really quite objectionable and tried to have that adjusted during our debate and discussion around the mandate. I’m not sure I can support the approach of building up large surpluses in our O and M to fund Roads to Resources. I have been on record as saying that, and that's, I think, part of the messaging in the fiscal context here. The other sort of messages in here are around that, “We can no longer afford the suite of programs and services we have been providing to our residents at the levels we have been providing them.” I don't actually accept that statement as fact, and tried to have it changed and adjusted through discussion, but I was unsuccessful. There are a couple of problems, I think, factually with the content of this. I mentioned earlier how the impact on the federal cut to our Territorial Formula Financing funding is not the $33 million that's specified in this. This could have been corrected before it was tabled in the House, but it wasn't. We now know that it is, I believe, $9 million.
The second sentence talks about the resource sector accounting for one third of our economy. My understanding is that it's 25 per cent.
So there are a number of issues with this. When this was first brought to Caucus, I also talked about, if we are going to have something in here about the fiscal context, we should have something about the environmental context and something about the social context, so that people have a good understanding of the situation that we're in and how that has helped shape what's in the mandate. Those other two pieces were not added. They were not dealt with in any way, in my view. Given those reservations about the content of this, I am more than happy to see the whole thing be deleted from the mandate, and I agree with my colleagues who have spoken before that this is not necessary as part of the mandate. We have better places to talk about this in terms of the budgeting cycle and so on, so I am in support of the motion.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Would any other Member like to speak to the motion? Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to all the Members for the significant effort that went into developing the GNWT's mandate. With the acceptance of the mandate, the government will have the strategic direction to proceed to advance the priorities identified by the 18th Legislative Assembly. As we start to begin the planning to start making decisions to advance the mandate, we cannot ignore our current economic realities. As Members heard in my fiscal update, our economy has not recovered from the global economic and financial crisis of 2008. The five-year outlook for the NWT economy is not great. In fact, the data suggest a protracted decline in resource production, which will negatively impact not only resource revenue but also northern businesses and employment. Our existing diamond mines are maturing and currently planned projects will not replace their contribution to the territorial economy. At the same time, exploration necessary for new development is also slowing down. Slow economic growth and stagnant population levels produce a flat revenue outlook, meaning fewer financial resources for government programs and services. However, if unchecked, our expenditures will continue to grow at a higher pace than revenue growth.
We therefore continue to plan proactively, making sure proper resources are in place to support the government's priorities. We need to remember that the GNWT has a budget of $1.8 billion. We will continue to invest in the NWT economy and supporting program and service delivery. Really, what we are talking about is trying to develop a mandate that means all things to all people. When a mandate becomes a wish list, it needs to be tempered by reality. The “Fiscal Context” section is an attempt to mitigate the expectations of a new mandate so that people realize we need to look at our financial situation before we as a government spend money on improving or instituting new programs and services. Taking the “Fiscal Context” section out of the mandate document does not change the realities we face as a government or for the public we serve, and we owe it to the public to be forthcoming with the challenges we face as we plan to implement our mandate. I believe that just shows good leadership. I would ask the Members to remember as they make their vote that removing an issue from a document does not make it go away, and the government still faces difficult challenges to finance existing programs and services that will not change.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. I'm seeing no more comments to the motion. I ask the mover to close debate. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. A recorded vote has been requested. All those in favour, please stand.
Mr. Vanthuyne, Mr. Blake, Mr. McNeely, Mr. Testart, Mr. Nakimayak, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Thompson, Mr. O’Reilly, Ms. Green, Mr. Nadli.
All those opposed, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.
Mr. Moses, Ms. Cochrane, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. McLeod – Yellowknife South, Mr. McLeod – Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. Schumann, Mr. Sebert.
The results of the recorded vote are 10 in favour; zero opposed; seven abstentions. The motion is carried
---Carried
Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we report progress.
