Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the modular homes were purchased, prior to my term and governance actually, we used the bid process and there was substantial savings, over 30 per cent savings, with using the modular homes. The cost of transportation, although there may be some differences, we still have to get those homes up by barge and stuff. There is still transport whether we use it to take the materials from the South or to bring the modular homes; there would still be a transportation cost within that, the amount I cannot state at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the community's been waiting. You know, there's going to be other challenges with NTCL having their challenges as well. What is the department planning as an alternative to getting these units shipped up to the communities?
The NWT Housing Corporation is well aware of the issues of the one barge going into some of the northern communities, and so we are really being proactive and trying to get all of our material for this year actually ready and to be shipped on the next NTCL boat that's going out.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned also, we're losing upwards of 20 jobs in our communities as a result of this. How can the corporation justify putting these people out of work, Mr. Speaker? Our small communities depend on these units being built in our communities; it's plain and simple. The employment rate is going to stay below 35 per cent because we're losing these jobs, Mr. Speaker, so how can the department justify that?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As stated, we do use the Business Incentive Policy to evaluate all proposals. We have sent out new proposals for this year and, coincidentally, the majority of all of the proposed proponents came in are actually northern businesses. This round will actually be all northern businesses. As well though, I do want to mention that the NWT Housing Corporation does recognize that we need to have jobs in the community. In an effort to provide jobs within each community and also to have better access to the corporation and to our services, we actually employ 128 people in the communities through our LHO local housing organization program. We chose to leave it within the communities and not make government positions, so that they are community-based programs and community-based jobs. One hundred and twenty-eight people within the communities are employed through that one initiative.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Mackenzie Delta.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the numbers the Minister just gave me, that's throughout the whole territory, Mr. Speaker. I'm talking about the small communities here, you know, my riding, three communities: Fort McPherson, Aklavik, and Tsiigehtchic. We're losing 20 positions here. I hope the department isn't planning to carry on this sort of practice here, because look at that, 10 months we've been waiting, Mr. Speaker. We could have built at least three to four times the amount of units while we've been waiting, Mr. Speaker. How long is the department going to carry on this practice? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, as stated, we are trying to support northern businesses. The next round that came in are all northern businesses that have applied. We didn't get any southern people that have applied for them, so you will see a change within this fiscal year.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Minister of Health is feeling a little bit under the weather today, so I've got some easy questions that I hope will make him feel a lot better. Mr. Speaker, my questions are about midwifery. The 2012 midwifery report recommended creation of midwifery positions in regional centres, including Yellowknife. Whether a regional or territorial model is pursued, positions should be staffed in Yellowknife. Will the Minister commit to bring forward funds in the 2017-18 business plan to staff positions for a midwifery program based in Yellowknife? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Health and Social Services.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, our goal is to build this on the success of the existing midwifery programs, to enhance access to birthing services, both pre- and post-natal care, and begin work on the development of a territorial midwifery program. We are doing that work now. We have been able to hire two midwifery consultants, which proved incredibly difficult. We had some significant turnover in that area, which really delayed our ability to move forward with the midwifery review that I had indicated in the previous government. We have those consultants in place, they are going through and they're working on evaluation frameworks, one that's being done in Hay River. They're also working on a consultation schedule to go out and have some engagement with stakeholders, not to reinvestigate it, but to help us develop a territorial model. The report that the Member is referring to gave us a number of different models to explore; that was territorial, regional, and community-based. We have two community-based models. We have one regional model. Now we're looking at developing the territorial model. We're doing the work this Assembly, this fiscal year. I can't say for sure that we'll be in a position to come forward for financial submissions for the 2017-18 fiscal year. We will try, but I make no guarantees. There's a significant amount of work that needs to be done. We do have to compete against other priorities. In order for us to get money for this, we do have to look at where that money's going to come from, and look at other areas where we may have to make reductions in order to make this a possibility. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the answer from the Minister and would like to try to help him try to find some money for that. Midwifery, because I've asked the Minister questions regarding cost savings, how they could be achieved by relying on community-based midwifery rather than pediatric care. His response was that boarding and travel costs have not been included in the analysis done to date. Boarding and travel costs seem to be some of the biggest costs for the current approach. Will the Minister consider these costs as part of the consultations to take place this year on expansion of midwifery services?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, all costs will be factored into our analysis. One thing that the Member does need to remember is that bringing in midwifery services does not actually help us or result in a reduced number of physicians that are available in the Northwest Territories. There are no cost savings with respect to midwifery services replacing physicians' services. Physicians are still a key component of birthing in the Northwest Territories even with our existing midwifery services that we are providing in different communities. It doesn't mean that births that are difficult, complicated, or that they think there's going to be challenges with still don't come into a regional centre. Many of the births that are being facilitated still happen in Yellowknife, even though a lot of the pre- and post-natal care is being provided. This does not mean that I don't support midwifery services. I've been involved in implementation of midwifery long before I was an MLA. I actually helped write the job descriptions, I helped on the implementation of the Hay River model. I believe in the service, but we've got to make sure it's costed properly, we need to have a territorial program design that's going to meet the needs, recognizing that people are still going to have to travel in and physicians are still a key part of the process. Midwives don't result in reduced numbers of physicians in the Northwest Territories.
In the area of midwifery services, Nunavut appears to be ahead of the Northwest Territories in meeting birthing service needs. Nunavut staffs midwives in the regional centres of Cambridge Bay, Rankin Inlet, and Iqaluit, which seems to be at least partly based on cost savings. Would the Minister agree that having an NWT midwifery program focused on regional centres, including Yellowknife, would likely result in some cost savings, or will he research the Nunavut model to investigate this?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, midwives provide both pre- and post-natal. Much of the birthing that's happening in Nunavut is still happening in other centres. For instance, many of the births that are coming out of Kitikmeot are actually happening here in Yellowknife. We need to look at the whole picture. We can't just look at little pieces and components of it. The pre- and post-natal portion of the services that the midwives are providing is amazing services and provides better results when we're actually looking at building stronger families and having healthier families and kids. I mean, we support the initiative; we're trying to find a way to make it happen. We have to build a territorial plan. We'll build it and we'll have to come forward to this House and seek some support and some financial support to make this a reality, but at the end of the day, midwifery services is going to have to compete against all the other priorities that are coming up in this House for additional money. This is housing. This is all these other types of things that are coming. We believe it has value and we'll bring forward the case at the appropriate time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the response from the Minister. But we've been talking about this for almost 10 years now, and we only really have midwifery services available in two communities. Can the Minister commit that he will fast track these consultations that he's talking about this summer, to bring forward final recommendations and an implementation plan as soon as possible? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Minister of Health and Social Services.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that although we did have some delays, now that we have our positions in place, finally we are able to get some qualified applicants to do the work. They are going at this as quickly as they can. This isn't their only job. They're also working on the evaluation frameworks that are being put in place in Hay River. If we're going to continue to roll out these programs, we must be evaluating the work that's being done; they're doing that important work. They're also working with physicians and the practitioners in Fort Smith, Hay River, and Inuvik, learning from what they're doing, and as I've already indicated, we're fully going to engage with stakeholders as we design this territorial model. The report gave us options for three different models, but it didn't actually describe what those models would look like or how they would be rolled out or how they would be funded. That work needs to be done. We need to build a business case; we need to do that in cooperation with the physicians and other stakeholders. It's going to take time. It is being done as quickly as it can. I can't guarantee we'll have something for the business plans next October, I believe it is, but we will do our best. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Deh Cho.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in my statement, I talked about treaty rights and obligations that are encumbered by the federal government and also the GNWT. My question is to the Minister of the Housing Corporation. Treaties of NWT are by nature bilateral between First Nations and the Government of Canada, and on the south of 60, we have a direct relationship between the federal government and First Nations in their communities in terms of their responsibilities to their citizens. Up here in the North, we have federal transfer payments that are received by the government on behalf of the people of the NWT, but also for First Nations. Now my question to the Minister: since taking over responsibility of housing from the federal government, what treaty obligations does the GNWT have for our First Nations in terms of housing? Mahsi.
Masi. Minister of NWT Housing Corporation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the treaty does state that the government will provide housing. However, the treaty does not state that housing will be free within that treaty. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I'd like to thank the Minister for saying that, and perhaps, you know, the issue's not as simple as that. For example, in terms of jurisdictions, you know, sometimes because of jurisdictions we get caught up in red tape. Sometimes the fact is that we have to board up homes because of jurisdictional messes between governments and First Nations communities. Recently, there has been steps in terms of trying to sort out the jurisdictions, the red tape, to try to bring housing to citizens that need it, particularly on the Hay River Reserve. Could the Minister update this House in terms of ensuring that progress has been made on that front, and ensuring housing for people that need them, at the same time explain the role of the Minister and the department in terms of working with First Nations?
Specific to the Hay River Reserve, there was an issue where there were units that sat empty for many years because of land tenure. When I came into governance, and prior to me as well, it was brought up as an issue. We worked on it very diligently, and I'm really pleased to report actually that we’ve negotiated with the federal government so that we do have land tenure and that we can actually put those units to use within the community. There are still more... I think there's four more; I may be incorrect. But I think that we're still looking at working with that with the federal government to try to get all of the units so that we can actually use those within the Hay River Reserve. Because I'm in agreement: it's really inappropriate that these units are being stagnated because of the tri-lateral agreements that we had in place. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's sometimes almost like a puzzle in terms of ensuring the immediate needs and critical needs of people are met. That's the obligation of this government that we have in terms of taking over responsibility from the federal government and ensuring that communities and families do receive houses. In terms of working with First Nations, you know… Some aspire to ensure that homeownership is a critical need, and that's their focus, but sometimes public housing, you know, people would rent their houses for a long time and not really perhaps aspire to own their own homes. What are the long-term goals of the GNWT in respect to self-government of First Nations in regards to housing? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Selfgovernance is an aspect that I actually take personally, and that I do respect and honour and believe it is the right way to support First Nations people and give them back ownership of their people and all of their culture, et cetera. I am committed to working closely with the First Nations communities and seeing what we can do to provide them, because at some point within selfgovernance, there will come a time, maybe not in this government, but soon, that they will need to take ownership of all of their services, housing, child protection, income support, all of those things. The more tools that we can give them beforehand so that they are successful in that, the better off they will be. I am starting to give consideration about what type of tools and how we will work toward it, how we will work with the self-governments so that they have the tools that they need so that when they are ready to take on housing. We will set them up to succeed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Deh Cho.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There has been a lot of progress in terms of selfdetermination of First Nations communities, ensuring they have responsibility for their citizens, and housing is one aspect of that. Could the Minister provide an overview to this side of the House in terms of how it's working with First Nations communities that aspire to have selfgovernment agreements with the Government of Canada and what its role is?
None of the community governments have approached me and said that they were looking to take on housing, but I know that it is something that we need to do in the future. Any of the governments that is actually wanting to take on the housing role, I am more than willing to support them with that, understanding that I don't want to set people up to fail, so I don't want to just dump it on them. I want to make sure that we have a solid plan that they can have the capacity to be able to take it on and succeed with that, and I would love to have a pilot government. If anyone wants to come forward, that would be wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Nunakput.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, earlier I spoke about the Ulukhaktok arena closure. My questions are for the Minister of MACA. Mr. Speaker, my first question is: what is the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs doing to assist Ulukhaktok with their remediation of its arena? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs.
Yes, thanks, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in the fall of 2015, the Hamlet of Ulukhaktok identified mould issues in their arena facility. They had arrangements with the consulting company on an existing project in the community, and while they were there, they engaged them to help them deal with the mould, so they have done that. A regional office, we were in communication with them. We were comfortable with the approach that they were taking, so we left that with them. As to what MACA is doing to help the system, we provide the community infrastructure funding that they are able to utilize, but at the end of the day, the community of Ulukhaktok took ownership of this, and they took steps to ensure that it was dealt with. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, my second question to the Minister is, and I appreciate the answer, my question is: has the department reviewed the consultant's report and discussed the issues with the Hamlet of Ulukhaktok, and what are the costs associated with the remediation?
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have not reviewed the consultant's report. Again, that was a decision that was made by the community of Ulukhaktok, and if they had any questions or if they needed any assistance, then all they have to do is call our office and we will provide whatever assistance we can. But a shout out to the community of Ulukhaktok for taking ownership in this and dealing with it. We make our people available to them for any type of advice or technical assistance we can provide. As to what the actual cost is of the remediation, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is public tender was led for the remediation work through the Hamlet of Ulukhaktok with a consulting company they are working with, and the tenders are actually closing on Friday, June 10th. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Minister for that answer. The importance of having recreation activities, especially far up north in small communities is very important, especially in the isolated areas that we live in. My region is furthest north in the territory and the impacts are native in very many ways. Mr. Speaker, my final question: will the Minister commit to assist the hamlet council to address this issue so that the people of Ulukhaktok will be skating and curling this fall?
Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I take the Member's point. We know the recreational facilities are very important to a lot of smaller communities, and I know a community like Ulukhaktok utilizes their facility quite often. We will make ourselves available to the community of Ulukhaktok should they seek any advice. They are managing the issue. They are managing the project. They are providing our regional office with key milestone times throughout the project, and my understanding is the work is expected to be completed in this summer and fall, so they should be open for the winter season.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have to change the way we do business. I was really struck the other day when I heard what some of the current Ministers said about budget years ago when they were Regular Members. They wanted to change the way we do business. I know they are honourable and determined people and they must have tried to change the way we do business in government.
Mr. Speaker, we have now spent months reviewing business plans, working on a budget we are considering in the House. We all had input into it. Even if we don't like it all, we feel we contributed to things that the Finance Minister has mentioned in his budget address, and I thank him for that. In doing that work, we save a few jobs and some important programs that might have otherwise been cut. This is not a small thing. Those jobs and programs cost millions of dollars. We did that for the good of the people of our territory. We should be proud of that. I am proud of that and probably the Minister of Finance is too.
I think the Finance Minister knows that we did our best, but that is not good enough. We have to change the way we do business. To start with, I think it was a huge mistake. The government went out on a major campaign to cut $150 million in the budget, with a big chunk of that coming this year, 201617. To this day, I don't know why the government did that or whose idea it was. I know it wasn't mine. The worst case I heard during the 17th Assembly doesn't even come close to the cut of $150 million, so I guess I have to blame the current government, current Cabinet, since they proposed this cut. Proposing this monster cut has a very important effect. It made us all focus on the cut and how we could keep the damage to a minimum. I saw an editorial saying it should be pretty easy to cut $150 million from the government's fat budget, but it's not. They have it all wrong. We are talking about people. We are talking about people's jobs, programs that people need. The bigger the cut, the more pain it is going to cause, the more it hurts our economy, the more it impacts our population. We spend a lot of time and energy on this, just keeping what we have now. When you focus on cuts, you are not focused on what you can build, what things you can do, or thinking outside the box. The fact is, when you are fighting cuts, you are only inside the box, and you can’t even see daylight. You cannot change the way we do business.
Mr. Speaker, I think when we talked about our priorities as 19 Members, we were talking about what we want to do. What we wanted to do most, what I wanted to do most was create jobs, especially at the community level. I want more jobs available to people so people have something to work for, some goals they can reach and to be proud of, so they can live well and do what they want to do. I want to do things that help people get jobs. That could be better education. That could be onthejob training in daycares, addictions treatment, you name it. For babies and toddlers, it might be early childhood development. We all raise our kids the best we can, and we want them to grow up to be healthy and get good jobs. Mr. Speaker, if we could do one thing to change the way we do business, it should be to create jobs in small communities. Let’s set some targets for employment and figure out how to get to those targets. Can you imagine if the employment rate in small communities was 70 per cent instead of 40 per cent? There would be very little need for income support. There would be less reliance on social housing. There would be less demand for health care. I have often said, “give people jobs and you will see the jails and the hospitals empty out and the schools fill up.” I’m telling you this from my own experience. If you go to small communities and see what’s going on, the people can’t afford to buy gas for their skidoos to go hunting. Mr. Speaker, when you shoot a moose, that moose is basically worth seven to eight thousand dollars to the family. That's what you save on groceries, and it's like having a big cheque in your hand. It hurts me when I see a good hunter that cannot afford gas that he needs to put food on the family’s tables. We should be doing something about it besides putting that hunter on income support and forcing him to ask the government to maintain his house.
We know we could do this, and we could do a lot more. We could put our young adults to work. We could hire a youth officer in every community. Mr. Speaker, we could start some daycares in our communities. That would create a few jobs. It would help young kids play and learn, and get ready for school. If we did that, the kids will do better in school. “Right from the Start,” as our Education Minister says. We have to do it, not just say it. We have to do it. On top of that, the parents of those kids could find work or upgrade their own skills to find work. Mr. Speaker, we need to invest in our youth in the communities where we have no youth crime. When we see a community doing right for the youth, we should provide them the support necessary. In one community where there has been no youth in court for several years, they want to start their own community development. They needed support from this government to do two or three major capital projects, but that was not in the government’s plans. Shifting things around to support that community could not be done. The government did not have the will.
It is on the other end of the spectrum, our population is aging, and we need to take care of our elders. We should be doing everything we can so our elders can age in place in their own homes in their own communities. It might take a few simple things: a ramp, better railing, some basic homecare. Mr. Speaker, a twohour visit to our elders a few times a week or every day would cost less than moving that elder to a home somewhere else, and it would be a lot better for them. This is what our elders want, and this is how life is lived in our communities. We should train our people who need to deliver home care, building on local skills and knowledge, including Aboriginal languages. We know we need to do this, but there is no new money for home care. If you moved money around into home care, you may actually stop the Health and Social Services budget from growing year after year.
Housing is another area that needs a lot of work. Compared to the rest of Canada, we have a high percentage of homes in core need. This is not good, especially since we don’t have jobs for people that will enable them to take themselves out of core need. On average, 20 per cent of our homes are in core need. An improvement is needed in every community, including larger centres. But we can’t seem to do that. Why not? Mr. Speaker, let’s do things differently. One idea, for example, would be in the housing market communities. Let's provide $5,000 for the basic improvements targeted to energy efficient or barrier free. Upgrade the homes up to $10,000, $20,000. People could leverage this money, resulting in spending two to four times greater than what the government’s contribution will be. That would stimulate the economy, improve aging homes, create jobs, reduce the number of homes in core need, and cut our greenhouse gas emissions. All things we need to do. Instead of doing that, we spend our time working on the budget trying to save existing jobs. We pushed the Minister very hard and thought we got the message across. But every day, we hear layoffs are proceeding. We hear that casuals are losing their jobs. We hear that summer students are not being hired. We are cutting entrylevel jobs, and that is not right. The reality is: all those losses disproportionately hurt Aboriginal people in small communities.
Mr. Speaker, when I hear fire crews are reconfigured, it really means some firefighters do not get work. I never heard of a single senior manager being laid off. I don’t hear the departments getting by with one less deputy minister or fewer directors. There has been no serious cutting at the top. Millions of dollars of programming may be cut, but not a single senior manager along with it. That is, I am sorry to say, business as usual. I know a guy that always says, “cash flows uphill,” and I think that is true. Mr. Speaker, I do not want our entire term in office to be wiped out as we focus on budget cuts. That is the wrong focus. I do not want the business plan in the fall to be more of the same. I do not want next year’s budget address to tell me we need a change. I want the next budget address to tell me we need to change the way we do business, and actually deliver on the promise. I do not want to spread doom and gloom, because our territory does not need that. It's not true. My people do not complain about the weather. We go out there and we do what we need to do when the time is right, and the time is right now for us to change the way we do business. We have more than three years left in our term. We need to decide what we want to achieve, and go out and do that. We don’t want to achieve a bunch of reductions, especially reductions that take jobs from people, Mr. Speaker. What we need is to create jobs, to create jobs that are accessible to people that don’t have jobs. We will need to help some of those people upgrade their skills, whether it’s through education, onthejob training, or apprentices. We need to match what we are doing with the results we want to get.
Mr. Speaker, our government must address our severe problem with alcohol. The Department of Health and Social Services must provide more tools to the communities to address alcohol abuse. Six or seven years ago, I asked a community health nurse, “what is the greatest health risk to your community?” Without thinking about it for a second she said, “alcohol.” She went on to talk about the cost of alcohol to the health system, and I know all of those things are true. We all know the cost of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. A person with FASD is costing the system more than $1 million dollars over their lifetime. In addition, consider the impact on their family and community. We also know that FASD is 100-per-cent preventable. Mr. Speaker, supports must be put in place to eradicate FASD. If we can do that, we will see so many benefits. I don’t know where to start listing them off, but I’m going to sum it up. If we can really do that, we can change the way we do business, and we will improve the situation for our grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, it was recently reported in the news that Canadians aged between 50 and 75 will inherit $750 billion from their parents over the next 10 years. The generation leaving us is the richest in history, but that is not the case in our small communities. People that age barely have enough money to feed themselves. I want to close with this point, Mr. Speaker, so that everyone can think about it. This is our future, and we want to leave something positive for our young people. I think that we should do that. We need to change the way we do business. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
---Applause
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. The difference of opinion between Cabinet and Regular MLAs with the 201516 budget reflects some unfinished business around the mandate. Our problem is what then-vice president George Bush Sr. described as “the vision thing.” As an interesting aside, I want to provide some context for this quote. Bush was considering a run at the presidency as Ronald Reagan's second term in office came to an end. You might recall that Reagan was known as “the Great Communicator,” but up to that point in 1987, Bush hadn't been very effective in articulating what he stood for, so a friend suggested he spend some time thinking about his fundamental values and beliefs. Then he could tell voters where he wanted to take them. Bush's response was dismissive. “Oh, the Vision Thing.” We 19 MLAs spent hours and days coming up with a mandate for this 18th Assembly. We looked at the transition documents our colleagues in the 17th left us. We looked at the promises each of us had made to voters. We considered the briefings provided by government departments, and our draft mandate got bigger and bigger and bigger. The mandate included a section called fiscal context, which made the case for cuts in order to generate a cash surplus to invest in infrastructure. At that point, the question of how much cash and what infrastructure remained unanswered. We debated this point as a Caucus without coming to a common understanding of the issue. Government wanted it in. We Regular MLAs wanted it out. Ultimately, Regular MLAs voted to remove this section during the debate of the mandate in February.
In hindsight, this debate turns out to be most significant, the most significant the Members of the 18th Assembly have had to date. Almost everything we have done since has been related by the government to the need to create a surplus by making cuts to the government's operating budget. Despite taking out the fiscal context section, the discussion about the need for a $150-million surplus didn't and won't go away. The Minister of Finance told the House in February that, “unless we find a way to curtail our expenditures and/or grow our economy by approximately $150 million over the next five years, the GNWT will continue to use shortterm borrowing to pay for operating expenditures and to finance infrastructure investment.”
The Minister of Finance also announced that there would be no new taxes, so the emphasis was on cuts. The regular MLAs interpreted this action as austerity and warned they wanted to see greater balance between generating new revenue and cuts. The government introduced a revenue options paper that dismissed most ideas as unworkable because they would increase the cost of living. Still, we wanted the government to take the public's advice on how to get this balance right. The Minister of Finance responded by setting up an email address backed by a smallscale awareness campaign to gather their responses to four specific questions. They asked which programs and services could be cut, how to be more efficient, which taxes to increase, but most importantly, the balance that I just discussed. The Minister tabled that document with the budget last week. There were 36 responses from individuals and organizations, and I would like to thank everyone who took the time to participate. The responses don't represent a consensus on what to cut or whether new taxes are acceptable, and it is not clear how the Finance Minister incorporated their responses in the budget he delivered last week. I will say the budget he delivered last week is the budget he promised in February, a budget that marched us towards a surplus so we can invest in infrastructure. In the meantime, between the February sitting of the House and the budget delivered last week, Regular MLAs reviewed business plans developed by each of the departments and asked Ministers and department staff questions just the way we are now when we sit as Committee of the Whole. It soon became clear through this process that departments were also struggling with “the vision thing.” Cabinet gave them targets for cuts. If there were principles for making cuts, it's not clear what they were. I can't find a way to relate them to the mandate priorities which should have been the overarching guidance. What we ended up with is a mixture of staff and program reductions. It is as if we went through the House to gather stuff for a garage sale. Whoa, there's this fondue set we got for a wedding present we never use. When was the last time anyone played this game? This was an expensive winter coat, but it never did fit properly.
Without a clear vision at the top, there wasn't a vision to share with the civil service about our common values and there still isn't. As recently as midMay, Regular MLAs warned the government that they were unconvinced that generated a $150 million surplus was either realistic or necessary, yet in last week's budget, the Finance Minister said, and I quote, “our target is $150 million in savings or new revenues to establish a shortterm cash surplus position by the end of the 18th Assembly.” Mr. McLeod goes on to report that the budget he presented last week represents 45 per cent of that total, so that means the exercise we've just been going through is going to come around again as soon as this fall when business plans for the next fiscal year are presented to Regular MLAs, and once again, we will be balancing cuts against tax increases in order to generate a cash surplus to invest in infrastructure.
There are some things we could do differently next time starting with the “vision thing.” We as 19 MLAs need to make another effort to come up with a common vision for this 18th Assembly. The process that led us to create five priority areas, then 25 explanatory priorities, and 136 commitments is not helping us in this budget process. We need a strong, simple statement about what we are doing financially, and most importantly, we have to try to reach consensus on this point. This is the first time we have attempted to create an overarching mandate on the basis of agreed priorities, and it is fair to say it hasn't totally worked. We need to learn from this and adjust the process. A second change is to agree on what we are creating a surplus for. The Minister has reported an infrastructure deficit of more than $3 billion. What are our priorities within that need? Houses, schools, health centers, roads? They are all vying for position. We need to create and agree on a list of priorities that reflect territorywide benefits. I don't disagree with building a road to Whati. I just think the community needs housing more. A third change is about how the government communicates what it is doing with its budget. In the financial update delivered in February, the Minister said, “unless we make changes to expenditure management, we will not have the fiscal resources to make strategic economic investments, let alone sustain current programs and services.” We have zigzagged from talking about impending crisis to a budget that, despite the cuts, delivers more spending than last years did. During that evolution, people who live, work, and invest in the NWT worried about their future, the future of government services, and the future of the territorial economy. Not that there aren't things to worry about with our volatile resourcebased economy and small population, but it's time to better match words with the actions. We need to stop talking about an impending crisis and start talking about what is being delivered, which is incremental change. The budget address, I hope, will begin a new dialogue about our finances.
A fourth change is how to involve the public in budgeting. Historically, the Finance Minister has appeared at public meetings to hear what voters have to say in communities all around the NWT. He has met with lobby groups and NGOs to hear their thoughts. He has encouraged the public to write emails and letters. The Finance Minister needs to ramp up his efforts, to gather public input for the next budget. He also needs to find a way to reflect the advice he's being given. Consultation isn't only about listening. It's about synthesizing the input into coherent direction and making a clear response to the trends in that direction, and above all, it's about being willing to change the end result.
Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, going to press on with our consideration of the budget that is now before us. It is a budget that has more benefits than any of us expected, and some good ones such as increases to Student Financial Assistance, the creation of the NWT Child Benefit, and restructured daycare funding, to name a few that are important to me. Before we look at the budget for the next fiscal year, we need to revisit our understanding of our fiscal context to see whether we can come to terms with “the vision thing.” Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to table the following document entitled “Report of the Northwest Territories Judicial Remuneration Commission in 2016.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
