Masi. Minister of Justice.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member opposite is quite correct. The outreach program has been a success. They have been visiting many of the communities, and a proposed policy for the outreach clinic has been drafted and will be going to the Legal Aid Commission in the coming months.
I can advise, however, that we are looking at the amount of use that the outreach clinic has, knowing that it needs to fill that gap between the legal aid programs that we have that provide assistance to those in criminal court and family matters and the private bar. We realize that there is a gap that does need to be filled.
I know it is being utilized by a lot of people, because, when people call to get an appointment to speak with the lawyer, it is usually quite far in advance. Not everyone, however, needs to speak with a lawyer necessarily, and the department has announced plans to make public legal education materials more available on its website. It also needs to do more work with things like a Facebook page for the Legal Aid Outreach clinic. What is the status of these efforts to get this information out there to the public and make it more accessible online?
There is no dedicated Facebook page at present, and, although that has been discussed by the department and communication staff, it's not an option immediately available. However, the outreach clinic will advertise on the GNWT Facebook page instead. In some ways, in my view, the best advertisement is the trips that the outreach clinic lawyer makes to the small communities, which I assume are well-advertised. We are bringing the law to the people.
If that is the best way to advertise, then I would like the Minister to advertise more and get the outreach worker out to the communities more. The reason that I talk about a Facebook page is because I wasn't aware that the Legal Aid Outreach clinic lawyer was coming to Hay River. I found out by happenstance. There was no Facebook page to advertise this.
We need to get this information out there so that we can inform people. If the best way to get the information out there is to have the lawyer travel to the communities, will the Minister commit to increasing the number of visits that the lawyer makes to the communities?
In the last number of years, the outreach lawyer has been to most of the communities, and I can advise as follows to the upcoming plans. There are community visits planned to Deline, March 4th; Tulita, March 5th; Fort Good Hope, March 6th; and Norman Wells, March 7th and 8th, with monthly community visits to Ndilo, Detah, and Behchoko to continue. The outreach clinic is proposing visits to Fort Smith, August 5th to 8th; the Inuvik region, August 27th to 13th; Fort McPherson, Tsiigehtchic, Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk by road; Aklavik by air; and potentially, Fort Simpson and Fort Liard. There has been a lot of work in visiting the communities outside of Yellowknife. That will continue.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It sounds like there is not going to be anyone in the office to answer the phone when people call. Can we get a commitment from the Minister to look at hiring another lawyer to stay in the office while the other lawyer gets to travel around and engage with the community in person?
I can't commit to adding a second lawyer, as any additional resources would have to proceed through the budgetary process, but certainly we do want to look at the level of activity in the office. I am open to considering issues that, if the office is overworked or there is too much work, we may have to add staff. I will be open to that discussion, but again, it has to go through the budgetary process. Thank you.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in May of last year the Aurora Collage Foundational Review was completed and it recommended, among other things, that the department hire an associate deputy minister of post-secondary education. In September, on September 7th, in fact, the government announced that they were hiring an executive search company to find this associate deputy minister of post-secondary education. Here we are, five months later, without having heard a result of that search. What is the result? My question is for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. Mahsi.
Masi. Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Later on in the session, actually, I'll be doing a Minister's statement on where we are with post-secondary education, so I'm going to be a little bit careful about what I'm saying. Currently, we are right in the middle of the process of the hiring of this associate deputy minister at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We were told that this individual would be in place by the beginning of this year. It is now almost the middle of February, so what is the new date for this individual to begin work?
I do have to take responsibility. I was a little bit more optimistic and hopeful that it would be in place at the beginning of the new year, forgetting that people do take Christmas holidays, and even forgetting that I had to take some vacation, myself. I realize that it's a little bit more delayed, and I'm not happy about that, but like I said, we're in the middle of it. We have just done the interviews and we're looking at the reference checks, so as soon as possible, once we make the offer. I can't make a firm date, though. The problem is that, depending on who we offer, if they have employment, there will have to be a notification, but my commitment is to get the best person in the country to help move us into a polytechnic university.
Can the Minister tell us how many qualified candidates Boyden Search Company turned up for this position?
That, I don't know offhand. I do believe that we are interviewing three people, but if the Member would like, then I can confirm that, how many people were actually recommended.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate that information. Can the Minister tell us whether anyone has been offered the job and has turned it down? Thank you.
Again, at this time we're just in the middle of the interview process. I don't know if an offer was put out and if it was turned down. I am hoping, like I said, that we get the best person. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Mackenzie Delta.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in follow-up to my Member's statement, I have a few questions for the Minister of ENR. I mentioned how we have a huge wolf problem throughout the Northwest Territories. I've even heard it from my other colleagues throughout the Mackenzie Valley. I'd like to ask the Minister: will the Minister encourage his department to open up the bounty to the same level in the Beaufort Delta as it is here around Yellowknife? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Wolf Incentive Policy was designed to assist with the declining caribou herds in the southern part of the Northwest Territories. We have a Wolf Incentive Area in place right now, and that is where the incentive would apply. However, throughout the Northwest Territories, any wolf that is harvested, they can bring it to their local office and they get $200. I think the Member is quite aware of that. If the wolf is skinned out, they get $400 plus $50 for the wolf skull, and then if it goes for a prime fur bonus, theoretically they can come out of it with $800 just throughout the Northwest Territories.
The Wolf Incentive Program is just for the Wolf Incentive Area, which is the wintering grounds of the two caribou herds that are in decline. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Our moose and woodland caribou populations are also being affected in my riding. I'm sure the Minister has travelled around and noticed the big packs of wolves we have in our territory. Will the department take action and raise the level of the incentive in my riding?
Just based on the numbers of wolves that have been harvested over the last 10 years, the harvesters in the Beaufort Delta are actually very proficient hunters. We would almost have to go for a supplementary appropriation, if we were to raise the incentives. If you look all across the Northwest Territories, the bulk of the wolf harvest is in the Beau-Del region by quite a large margin, so they take advantage of the incentives that are offered now.
This is a pilot project, so if there were to be a decline in some of the wildlife out there because of the population of wolves, then, working with our co-wildlife partners or co-management partners, it is probably something that we would have to have a serious look at, but for this particular incentive that we're offering now, it is designed for the declining caribou herds in this part of the Northwest Territories. We heard from the tour that I did in the Monfwi a couple of weeks ago that wolves are one of the major problems, so this is one way we thought we could address it, along with a number of other initiatives that we're working on.
You know, just to be fair, I think we should have the same price throughout the Northwest Territories. Everywhere I've travelled throughout my riding, there are wolves everywhere. If you go 10 miles out of the community in each direction, there is a pack of wolves, so it's pretty clear that we need action. I know there is a good incentive we have now, but just to be fair, to bring it up by $700, I know we may have to ask for a little more funding through the department, but I believe that that is a good investment because that is to help with the populations of moose, woodland caribou, and also Porcupine, which is healthy at the moment but, you know, if we don't take action now, I'm sure we'll see a big decline there. How soon can we see an increase in the incentive to bring down the wolf population in the Mackenzie Delta?
It is not something that we're looking at right now. Again, we are concentrating on the wolf harvest incentive areas where the declining caribou numbers are. That's what we're looking at right now. As far as the rest of the Northwest Territories, we do have a bit of an incentive for them to bring their wolves in and collect the money. One of the reasons we put this in place and one of the reasons we have the wolf incentive area in place is, in the past, there were people who brought in garbage-dump wolves, we call them, that were really no threat to the caribou herd. So we thought we'd have a Wolf Incentive Area, and the wolves that were harvested in that area would receive the incentive.
Across the rest of the Northwest Territories, that's another conversation we need to have. I hear the Member's point on the Porcupine caribou herd, and those numbers have been pretty stable for the last number of years, and I would like to think one of the reasons those numbers are stable is because of the number of wolves that are harvested up in the Richardson Mountains by the boys from Aklavik, the hunters from Aklavik. I would like to think that is one of the reasons. Again, that is another conversation we need to have. For now, we are concentrating our efforts on the numbers of caribou that are declining. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some more questions for the Minister of Justice. Earlier, I asked about the Legal Aid Outreach clinic and about getting information out to the public.
I see our guests are leaving here. I was worrying they were going to fall asleep. We don't have the sort of action they are used to in their party-based parliaments.
Mr. Speaker, I have some more questions for the Minister of Justice. Not everyone only needs legal information. Some people actually need a lawyer. You know, by having a lawyer, it actually helps the government. I think it helps bring down costs. It will shorten timelines. It will reduce a number of self-represented people in court. I would like to maybe get the Minister's take on this from what he knows about legal aid lawyers. If we increased the number of legal aid lawyers and maybe added another legal aid clinic in the territory, would those lawyers be busy or would they be sitting around, twiddling their thumbs? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. Minister of Justice.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a hypothetical question, of course. I am sure they wouldn't be sitting around, twiddling their thumbs. I think they would be working very hard because there are a lot of clients out there who really do need the assistance of lawyers, legal aid or otherwise. The amount of work, I don't think, is likely to decrease. In fact, it is likely to increase. I think if we added more lawyers or clinics, it would be sufficiently busy to justify their salaries. Thank you.
That is what I expected, especially given that, like I said earlier, the number of small-town lawyers across Canada are disappearing. You know, they are retiring. They are finding second careers in politics. I would like to know: would the Minister be open to actually looking into this and seeing if the need is justified and that perhaps we could take concrete steps toward adding an additional legal aid clinic?
I guess I am part of the problem in this area because, as the Member across has mentioned, there is a problem. There were more lawyers, I think, in the smaller towns up here several years ago, active lawyers doing general practice, than there are now. Certainly, I am willing to look at this issue. Of course, adding a clinic or additional lawyers would involve additional expense, so we would have to proceed through the budgetary process. I am aware of the problem and am concerned and willing to look at it.
I appreciate that. The Minister said he would be willing to look into it. I would like a commitment from the Minister. Will the Minister commit to looking into adding an additional legal aid clinic in the South Slave?
Again, of course, there is the budgetary process that we would have to go through. I do recognize the issue and will make the commitment to look into it.
Masi. Oral questions. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that commitment by the Minister. Let's go one step further. Will the Minister commit to looking into the viability of the Legal Aid Outreach clinic in the South Slave and an additional Legal Aid Outreach clinic lawyer in the South Slave?
This might be an issue that the transition committee might look into because I don't think anything could be done in the very near future. Certainly, I am willing to look into this issue. Again, as I have said numerous times before, increase in cost would have to go through the budgetary process, but I am willing to look seriously at this issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reply to the final operations and maintenance budget of the 18th Legislative Assembly. When this sitting of the House began earlier this month, I recognized the opportunity this budget represents to put the NWT economy on the right footing to face the challenges we all know are on the horizon. The diamond mines that are the real drivers of our economy are set to close far sooner than any one of us would like. Our aging workforce and persistent outmigration of skilled labour challenges our available labour supply while our cost of living continues to rise faster than the national average. Our communities still suffer from high rates of crime and substance abuse, systemic issues born of the legacy of colonization and intergenerational trauma.
I know these are not the words of "sunny and happy days" nor hopeful optimism that some of my colleagues would prefer we occupy our time speaking in this Chamber. However, in my opinion, the time has come for rose-coloured glasses and double-speak to end. Without an ambitious plan to grow the economy, invest in northern potential, and realize the long-awaited opportunities present in our territory, future prosperity will always remain out of reach. Many MLAs have shared the same sentiments, encouraged bold moves and big thinking to solve the challenges we face together as Northerners, only to be met with the same old lines about sticking to long-standing processes and status-quo strategies that quite simply aren't working to move anyone forward.
Before the honourable Members of this House had the privilege of their seats in the Legislature, they were candidates in the 2015 election, and some served in elections before that. I can almost guarantee that each one of us ran on promises of reducing the cost of living and making life more affordable for Northerners. It was easy to make these kinds of promises, and has been even easier to overlook them. I believe this is the case with the current Cabinet who has made their fiscal strategy the driving force behind their leadership of the GNWT.
Departments have experienced cuts, band-aid solutions pasted together, all in an attempt to save cash or reduce debt, and this government stalled on a collective agreement for over three years, which nearly plunged the NWT into the first-ever public service strike affecting 4,000 employees of the territorial public service. Jobs lost, many workers put into precarious job situations, unsure of their future while the constant mantra of "fiscal restraint" beats down from upon high. Northern-owned and operated businesses deprived of crucial capital, while towering infrastructure megaprojects largely favour southern firms and gobble up the majority of government infrastructure dollars instead of investing them in local businesses, people, and communities.
It is no wonder that the people are frustrated, and we have lost some of the optimism that Northerners are so well known for.
Mr. Speaker, doing more with less isn't a workable plan if the right strategies aren't put in place. Restraint impedes the government's ability to function and undercuts the precious funding dollars that our people and their communities need to thrive and create new opportunities for themselves and their families. Austerity measures and belt-tightening exercises please the banks and our creditors but starve the economy. Cabinet spends a great deal of time talking up their fiscal strategy as the silver bullet to solve all of our challenges, but it has failed to create growth or prosperity over the last four years. The NWT has fallen behind. The Canadian economy has outpaced us and recovered from the bad years of recession. Through new develops in the mineral resource industry that will make our sister territories of Yukon and Nunavut the economic growth leaders for our entire country at 4.7 percent in 2019 and 4.5 percent in 2020. By comparison, the NWT is forecast to contract at an average annual pace of 1.6 percent between 2019 and 2025. That's right, Mr. Speaker, zero growth for the next Assembly and for the communities that we serve.
We have ignored these warning signs for too long. The time to invest in our future is now. When I turn my eye to the details of this current budget, I look to how it will get our economy back on track and counter the trend that has been persistent since Cabinet launched their fiscal strategy. I am reminded of a basic rule of economics that has served us all well since the Great Depression: When in a recession, governments need to invest in the economy; when in times of plenty, that is the opportunity for governments to get their fiscal houses in order, pay down debt, and make adjustments to spending priorities.
Mr. Speaker, these concepts are not rocket science; in fact, they are basic economics. In 2016, I characterized the fiscal strategy as an austerity measure. I maintain that position today, not based on my own personal opinions, but on the state of the current economy and the recession that is predicted to follow in the wake of this Assembly. We must do better and realize that the responsibility of our government is not only to manage its finances wisely, but to use our spending power to reinforce the prosperity of our territory.
The Honourable Premier and Cabinet cannot be solely responsible for the internal economy and financial health of the GNWT. They must also be mindful of their fiduciary responsibility to build a strong and stable economy outside of the public sector.
Mr. Speaker, the Regular Members have tried to bring this message home many times. In our unique form of consensus government, MLAs have unparalleled access to budgetary documents and processes that make us the envy of Ottawa, provincial backbenchers, and opposition Members alike. We call this the business planning cycle, and it is an opportunity each year to spend a few weeks reviewing departmental business plans and offering advice, praise, criticism, and, perhaps most importantly, providing the government with advance and intimate knowledge of the needs of our constituents and the communities that we represent. The recommendations of Regular Members throughout the business planning process are then supposed to be incorporated into the government's financial plans and used to improve upon the final budget documents.
Much work goes into this process. In this year, the 2019-2020 business plan review, approximately 450 hours of the legislative research branch were spent in advance of the review. Fifteen days of committee meetings were required to review the plans, which amount to approximately 600 hours of committee hearings for Regular MLAs. In addition to this time, the time of support staff required is approximately 30 person days, 240 hours plus about 60 hours of preparation for individual meetings. That is a grand total of 1,350 person hours.
The business planning process is one of the most significant parts of the job of MLAs on both sides of the House, and the entire process happens in secret and behind closed doors. The public only hears about it during times like these, when the budget is made public in the formal session and Members are allowed to speak to what has been presented.
After 1,300 plus hours of review, what role is the public in the budget process? None. Everyday Northerners have zero input into the budget, save the concerns brought forward by us, their public representatives. This is a choice, not a rule. The current Minister of Finance has refused to undertake any budget consultations since taking on the role in 2015. Previous Assemblies have done public budget consultations, and many provincial legislatures and the House of Commons continue to engage citizens in pre-budget consultations on an annual basis. We ought to be doing this as well and enhancing the public's right to know, either by producing a draft citizen's budget in plain language for public feedback or opening up the business planning process completely and allowing the broadcast of our committee deliberations.
This comprehensive and thorough business planning process is, again, a unique feature of the consensus system and ought to bring together the different viewpoints of the Legislative Assembly of the day to build a stronger, more inclusive territorial budget. In my experience, that has not been in case.
In 2016, Regular Members identified $6.5 million in unacceptable reductions proposed for the 2016-2017 budget. In 2017, Regular Members opposed reductions and proposed strategic investments for a total of $19.9 million in the 2017-2018 budget. In 2017, Regular Members identified $3.5 million in additional expenditures or reductions that they wanted cancelled in the 2018-2019 budget.
In all of these examples, the hundreds of hours of time spent in each business planning process failed to produce a mutually acceptable budget when first introduced into the House. Instead, what followed was weeks of departmental deferrals, behind-the-scenes negotiations, and on-the-floor questioning.
As I have said before, this budget process is notoriously secret. The government continues its practice of tabling two budgets a year and claiming surpluses, when, in actual fact, this year's budget is running a cash deficit of $7 million. This practice serves the interests of the big banks, but does not meet the standards of transparency that our government should be aspiring towards. The byzantine nature of how the government produces its budgets does not end solely in their presentation, but also to the aforementioned process inherent to the business plan cycle.
I have come to the conclusion that this process is less a feature of the openness and collaboration that is supposed to be a part of consensus government and, rather, is a means to limit public understanding of the most significant financial decisions of the territorial government. It is a way for those with power to ensure their vision is the only one that counts and differing opinions are left out in the cold, unheard and unresolved.
Mr. Speaker, this budget is no different. Regular Members identified a mere $2.4 million in both opposed reductions and new investment requests, including a new safe house pilot project, a budget for multi-sport games, addressing vacant public service positions, an increase to the Small Community Employment Strategy, and a plan to address the municipal funding gap.
In a budget that totals nearly $2 billion of spending, $2.4 million is a drop in the bucket, and yet, these concerns remain unaddressed. Instead, the Premier and Cabinet added more than $20 million in additional spending after the business planning process, based on the immediate needs of the GNWT and not based on the modest and reasonable requests of MLAs representing the wishes and ambitions of their constituents. We are still waiting for the Cabinet to act on our requests.
This brings me to the detail of the budget before the consideration of the House. The 2019-2020 Main Estimates propose to spend $1.87 billion, based on available revenues of $1.93 billion. Total debt will increase to $1.1 billion, leaving $200 million of available borrowing capacity before the government hit its debt wall, and the Government of Canada will need to make a decision on our public debt provisions in the NWT Act. I know that the Minister of Finance has begun these discussions, and I thank him for that proactive step and look forward to being given more details in the future.
On the face of it, this budget proposes more status quo spending, with certain financial increases to areas of the public service that have only seen recent concern by the public and Members. Other spending commitments follow through from previous years' initiatives that involve multi-year funding strategies. It is neither good nor bad; it is more of the same. It continues to leave many issues unaddressed in a significant way, but maintains support for some priorities that we all share. It is status quo with some incremental change in the right direction, but simply does not go far enough. We have mere years to get back on track, not decades, so more ambition is needed to make the changes that will be felt throughout our communities and in the pocketbooks of our constituents.
For example, while I welcome the addition of $3.3 million to support new positions in Child and Family Services, I am concerned that this money has come without first completing a full cost accounting of programming and operational needs for the division. This is something that the Office of Auditor General has recommended for many years and still remains unrealized.
In the last budget, $600,000 of the appropriation for homecare workers was lapsed, unspent because the Minister could not staff the new positions. This amount of money is now being used for the proposed Child and Family Services positions, without the aforementioned plan called for by the Auditor General and by the committees of this Assembly. I do not want to see lapses again in the public accounts and a return to the treasury of these desperately-needed funds simply because the proper prior planning was not first put in place.
Housing remains a key issue for many Northerners, and I am pleased to see more than $100 million invested in the housing portfolio. This investment continues to exceed what most provinces spend per capita on their housing needs and shows the commitment of this government on making a difference in affordable and available housing. It is a sound investment, and I support it.
Investments in needed infrastructure continue in this budget, with an additional $2.1 million to support the capital budget passed last year. I support this investment, but I, too, as others of my honourable friends have mentioned, am concerned of excessive carryovers that limit the impact of these funds. This government must do a better job of following through on deployment of capital dollars in a timely fashion instead of lapsing and carrying over major capital projects year over year.
The budget address makes a strong case for economic diversification. Unfortunately, the budget does not. Diversified investment remains weak. I recognize and support the addition of $1.2 million to support tourism, the NWT Film Commission, and territorial parks. These are welcome new items, as are the continuing investments in the Great Slave Fishery.
However, government support of manufacturing remains unclear, with an incomplete strategy and no new funding announced. A wage subsidy for manufacturers and companies employing skilled tradespeople would go a long way to growing our labour capacity and expanding this sector of the economy, but that's not in this budget. Neither are strategies or plans to expand cannabis retail opportunities, provide capital to entrepreneurs, support strategic innovation in existing and new businesses or break open the rules on beer and spirit manufacturing that could compliment the local tourism markets in Yellowknife and other communities in the NWT. Support to these local industries may not replace the prosperity of the diamond mines but they provide resiliency when resource markets are soft and mineral exploration is flat.
On the topic of innovation and diversification, I applaud the government for bringing forward a costed knowledge strategy in the amount of $375,000. I still feel the strategy is too inward-looking and primarily focused on the government, but this is a complex area of public policy and must be properly understood before full investments in it are realized.
While there has been some movement on the knowledge economy, there is no new money for postsecondary education. I am not sure how anyone can be convinced that this Legislature is taking post-secondary development and a new northern polytechnic seriously when funding levels remain the same. The long demand for an adequate campus in Yellowknife to support our students is also not addressed in this budget. A planning study in partnership with the City of Yellowknife should be a priority.
Speaking on the cities, towns, villages, hamlets, and all of our communities, the municipal funding gap remains a major concern for our residents. With only $1.8 million added to the funding this year, there is still $33 million unaccounted for, and this figure does not take into account the roughly $2 million in inflation since the gap was first identified. Investment in our communities represents money that stays in the North and supports the health, wellbeing, and prosperity of our residents. This gap is the sole responsibility of the GNWT, not a broader national issue that needs the intervention of the federal government to take action. $8.2 million over four years in simply not going to cut it as inflation eats away at the value of those dollars. This government must commit to either closing the gap with new investment or rebalancing the funding formula to something the GNWT can support financially. There are no other options.
Northerners expect public services of the highest quality and client-oriented access to those same services. Many of our residents enjoy the support of government service officers or GSOs. GSO and single-window service centres are award-winning examples of smart, people-driven public policies that the GNWT is rightfully proud of, and I see no reason not to expand this important part to the rest of the public service in all of our communities. For several budgets now, Regular Members have called for a pilot project in regional centres and the capital of Yellowknife. Unfortunately, there is still no money in the budget for this pilot project, and Northerners living in larger communities are forced to navigate the sprawling GNWT bureaucracy without access to a single point of service delivery or single point for direction. This needs to change.
This budget is really the last opportunity for this government to live up to its mandate commitment of lowering taxes on small businesses. It is a great disappointment to me that no such tax cut is present in the main estimates. This amounts to a broken promise from this government and an incomplete mandate item. I acknowledge that the Minister of Finance has publicly stated that a tax cut isn't in the best interests of the business community, but I wholly reject that assessment. Has he consulted on this tax cut proposal? Has he spoken with the NWT Chamber of Commerce or Community Chamber of Commerce about reducing the tax burden on small business? No, he has not, and on this issue the Minister and I remain completely opposed. It represents a break from the mandate and makes me question many of the other commitments that the government insists it will fulfill in the next six months.
While there may be no tax break for small business, Northerners will have a new tax imposed on them by the government with its carbon tax initiative. We will have the opportunity to debate the carbon tax in the coming months, but I remain unconvinced in the government's design. The new tax is projected to raise $16.2 million, with $12 million being returned to taxpayers and industry in the form of rebates. "Revenue neutral," however, does not mean "cost neutral," and this proposal places the burden of the tax on the shoulders of everyday Northerners and their families. Nunavut and Yukon have chosen to accept the imposition of this tax from Ottawa, and the so-called "federal backstop" that has been enriched in recent months in rebates to become a far more generous proposal to individuals and their families than what this government is offering. I do not support this tax in its current form. Since doing more research and hearing from my constituents, I am skeptical if a carbon tax is even in the best interests of the NWT. The Honourable Premier and finance Minister have both shared this skepticism in the past, and yet have still signed on to impose the tax and been resistant to the suggestions of Regular Members on how to improve their proposal. I hope we can make changes to the proposal or even that the Minister will take action on his personal opposition to the tax by joining the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario in refusing this new burden on the basis of our unique Northern circumstances. Nearly anything would be better than the current proposal before us now that will further increase our cost of living, limit revenues, and growth opportunities for Northerners.
Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned about the priorities of this government, but, when it comes to this budget, I will be in support of it and I hope that we can make improvements. It doesn't go far enough, but we can't change course now. There's simply not enough time left in the term, and this money needs to get out the door to support our communities, support our public service, and get the mandate completed. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, this year's budget address was pushed to the side temporarily while we discussed more immediately pressing issues. Even before the Minister of Finance finished his budget address last Wednesday, the Union of Northern Workers announced it had served a strike notice. My email inbox filled up with messages from constituents and other NWT residents. In almost every case, their rationale was fear of lost earnings. They are living paycheque to paycheque, and they can't afford to be without income for even the briefest period of time. This situation is not unique to government workers. In fact, a couple of months ago, a local bank manager told me he estimated 80 percent of the local population live hand to mouth. Part of the issue here is the spending choices people make, but another part is the high cost of living in the North. I decided to take a different approach to my budget evaluation this year, looking at what the government is doing to address the high cost of living for working families.
In our mandate, we made lowering the cost of living one of our central priorities. We all agreed to take action on affordable housing, food security, childcare, investments in cost-effective and renewable energy, and promoting federal investment in reducing the cost of living for Northerners. Budget 2019 represents our last chance to deliver on that promise to lower the cost of living.
First of all, how do we measure the cost of living? There are many possibilities, but the one I am going to use is the living wage. The living wage is simply this: the amount of money someone who is working full-time requires to pay for the basics. The living wage budget doesn't include owning a home, paying down debt, or saving for retirement, among other things.
Mr. Speaker, the living wage is calculated using the nationally recognized standard called the Canadian Living Wage Framework. The standard ensures inputs are consistent across the country, and the results are comparable year over year and among jurisdictions. Rates are calculated for many different family types, but the one I'm going to focus on is the family of four. It is the most common family type in the NWT. There are two adults, both working full-time, with one child in school and one in licenced daycare. According to the November 2017 calculation, a family of four living in Yellowknife needs a gross annual income of $92,158, or $20.96 an hour per adult. Let me put that hourly wage into context. Almost a third of the NWT earns less than $20.00 per hour according to Bureau of Statistics numbers for 2017.
Mr. Speaker, the greatest expense for most working families in Yellowknife is shelter. The affordability of market rentals is a serious problem. That last community housing survey revealed that one in seven households are paying more than 30 percent of their gross income on shelter. The response of Budget 2019 to this problem is inadequate. The budget makes $600,000 available for the Transitional Rent Supplement Program, a figure that hasn't changed in three budgets. More than 1,000 households in Yellowknife and another 700 across the territory face affordability problems. Even if every household qualified for the program, each would only receive $333 for a year, not a month but a year. I'm sure families would appreciate the support, but, clearly, it's not enough.
Another possible solution to affordability is to increase the stock of public housing where rent is geared to income. No luck for most Yellowknife families, unless they are homeless, because of the long waiting list. In 2019, the Housing Corporation plans to build just 32 public housing units, most of them to rent to seniors. While the increase in public housing for seniors is very welcome, it won't help working families. We have yet to see any plan for how the federal infusion of housing dollars will improve the supply of them. Another solution, probably even less palatable, is to consider rent control. In our mandate, we committed to address affordability. The mandate tracker is confusing about the government's success on this point. It shows both that this commitment has been fulfilled and that it is in the planning stage. Either way, affordability is still a big problem. On the issue of affordable housing, I am giving budget 2019 an F.
Mr. Speaker, home ownership is usually not possible for one-income and low-income families, especially when the costs of heat, utilities, taxes, maintenance, and insurance are added in. All of those costs have gone up during the 18th Assembly, and as I mentioned earlier, the living wage of $20.96 an hour contains no provision to save for a down payment, so people are forced to rent.
When it comes to alleviating operating costs for owners of rental properties, or for the very few low-income homeowners, territorial government contributions to energy savings programs delivered by the Arctic Energy Alliance have been constant over the last three years. The federal government has picked up some of the slack with a planned contribution for the next fiscal year of $2.5 million. On the mandate commitment of supporting the use of energy-efficient technologies in the residential sector, budget 2019 gets a B, thanks to help from Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, the second largest expense families have in Yellowknife is childcare. According to research on the living wage, with reference to the family with two children, full-time care for one child, along with afterschool care, professional development days, and summer camp for the older child, will set families back more than $16,000 a year. The fact is that childcare is unaffordable, even for parents with two good incomes, particularly if they have multiple children in care.
Childcare is also not widely accessible. The largest licensed childcare provider in Yellowknife has a waiting list of over 150 children. Eleven NWT communities do not have licensed childcare at all. Budget 2019 does absolutely nothing to change this situation. The investment in program grants and operator subsidies is exactly the same in the next fiscal year as it is in the current one.
Budget 2019 does nothing to improve accessible and affordable childcare, although, in fairness, the introduction of junior kindergarten has lifted some of the burden of childcare expenses from working families when their children reach four years of age.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many reasons for the GNWT to invest in universal, affordable childcare. The first is the benefit to children in terms of their development. Second, it enables women to choose whether to remain in their paid jobs or stay at home with their children. The NWT Bureau of Statistics estimates that the economic multiplier for childcare services, a type of return on investment, is 9.86 jobs for every $1 million invested. Universal childcare would create jobs in every community, including those where there is high unemployment. Finally, parents who return to the workforce, as well as the additional childcare staff, are both paying taxes and spending. Yet, there is no additional money in Budget 2019 for this pressing problem.
In terms of the mandate, we started this Assembly agreeing to institute universal, affordable daycare within four years. Midway into the term, we backed that off to simply having a plan for achieving that goal. Here at the end of the Assembly, we are nowhere on these commitments. For childcare, the Budget 2019 earns an F.
Mr. Speaker, the third largest expense for most households is food. Again using the living wage calculation, the cost of food for the family of four has increased by 10 percent between 2015 and 2017 to just over $13,000 a year here in Yellowknife. The premise of the living wage calculation is that the family earns enough money to afford to buy good food for themselves without resorting to food banks or soup kitchens. Yet, according to the NWT Bureau of Statistics, most families struggle without these supports. One in five residents of the NWT aged 12 and up experience food insecurity. That means they don't have enough to eat, and they skip meals, or it might mean that they make compromises about the quality and quantity of food that they eat. Many students have breakfast and lunch programs at school.
The budget 2019 response to food costs is disappointing. There is $650,000 for the Healthy Foods for Learning program, the same amount as there has been in the last three budgets. There are very few mentions of food in the main estimates, and most relate to developing food production on a commercial basis. While those initiatives may help residents in the long run, buying food from your local grocery store is a daily challenge of adequacy against quality and quantity.
On our mandate to improve food security, I am going to score budget 2019 as a C, by giving programs now under way to improve local food production the benefit of the doubt. The most recent food security numbers are from 2014, so let's hope that they have started to go down.
The Minister of Finance promised no increases to existing taxes, but the new carbon tax is coming our way on July 1st. The GNWT estimates that the impact of the carbon tax will be between $300 and $360 per household per year, anticipating increases to the cost of housing, utilities, and food. The government is offering a new cost of living offset benefit to reduce the impact of the tax. It estimates that there will be a net benefit to families of between $400 and $450 a year from this initiative. We won't know the real impact of the carbon tax on the living wage family until it is introduced, but I understand that families are apprehensive about their cost of living increasing because of it.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has increased the Northern Resident tax deduction, a tangible way to reduce the cost of living. Issues with Nutrition North remain. While the GNWT has signed bilateral agreements with Ottawa on housing and childcare, it is difficult to see how these agreements are going to benefit individual families. The childcare money is being spent on workforce development rather than increased subsidies. It is unclear how the housing money will improve affordability and availability of additional public housing units. On the mandate commitment of promoting federal investment in reducing the cost of living for Northerners, I am giving budget 2019 a D. Yes, there is more money, but it is unclear how it is reducing the family budget for its major expenses: shelter, childcare, and food. For the working family, this budget unfortunately gets a failing overall grade.
Mr. Speaker, that is the spending side of the ledger for the living wage family. On the revenue side, labour income increased by 2.8 percent over the first nine months of 2018, compared to the same period in 2017. Yet, disposable income rose by only 1 percent. Average weekly earnings have been steady for several years at $1,400 a week.
Working families are eligible for the NWT Child Benefit. The NWT Child Benefit is available on a pro-rated basis to families with an income of less than $80,000 a year. This benefit is not indexed to inflation, and its budget remains at $2.2 million, the same as it has been since 2017. It is worth noting that the living wage family would not qualify for the NWT Child Benefit if the two workers together earned $92,000. It is time for the government to raise the income eligibility for working families and to index the benefit to inflation, as the federal government has done with the Canada Child Benefit.
Mr. Speaker, these changes represent an investment in families, families who make the NWT home, pay taxes, and count in the calculation of the territorial financing formula. It is an investment worth making. The living wage family would also receive a GST credit and the Canada Child Benefit to supplement their income. The benefits all tolled are $4,300 a year. They would pay taxes, of course, at $14,700 a year, so their net income for the year would be about $82,000. I think most of us would agree that making a go of it for a family of four on that amount of money would be extremely challenging and would require some excellent money management skills.
Mr. Speaker, the greatest risk to working families in the NWT today is job insecurity. Unemployment increased by almost 1 percent from 2017 to 2018, and that is even after 2,800 people moved out of the territory, for a net loss of 911 people, the largest since the recession in 2007. The NWT economic outlook is for modest growth at best.
Budget 2019 reports that mineral and petroleum exploration will be lower this year than last, primarily because of weak commodity prices. Despite all of the government's efforts to promote mining, it is again offering just $1 million for the Mining Incentive Program. I realize that mining companies can access incentives from the federal government as well, but the territorial government needs to put its money where its mouth is. Mr. Speaker, there will be a decline in public- and private-sector construction jobs now that the new Stanton Territorial Hospital and the Gahcho Kue mine are complete. The overall picture shows our best days are behind us, at least for now.
The budget says, and I quote: "Despite solid economic growth for 2017, the NWT economy remains 10.3 percent smaller than it was in 2007 before the global financial crisis." It's worth noting as well that full employment is 11 percent below those pre-recession levels. As I said last year and I say again now, it is the time to redouble efforts to diversify the economy. The budget papers acknowledge the importance of spreading risk among a number of sectors, yet ITl's economic diversification budget is up by a paltry $125,000 this year, although I realize there are modest investments in specific areas, as well. Clearly we need to do more to secure a robust economic future for working families.
I'm going to a take a small detour here. It's interesting to me that the budget papers report on the performance of what are called "other sectors." These other sectors include commercial fisheries and trapping and hunting. These two sectors together earned $1.5 million last year. Yet tourism, a sector that earned $203 million last year, is not part of GDP data. It's time to change that. It's important to report on one of the bright spots, the only bright spot, in our economy.
Mr. Speaker, each year during my budget address I have spoken about the need to increase revenue. Obviously, it's an ongoing issue. I am, of course, happy to see the rebound in corporate tax and royalties. I understand these revenue sources are the most variable in the budget, and often for reasons that are beyond the government's control, but that does not mean we are powerless to increase revenue in other areas. The problem is leadership.
Mr. Speaker, the 2016 revenue options paper lays out several possibilities to raise more money. A tax bracket for high individual income earners would net $2 million a year. A 1-percent increase in the payroll tax would bring in $20 million. A 1-percent increase in corporate tax would yield $5 million. The revenue options paper dismisses all of these options because they would increase the cost of living, the cost of doing business, and/or generally make the NWT a less desirable place to work. There is no evidence presented to support this conclusion. It is simply a Department of Finance mantra.
Mr. Speaker, a report commissioned by the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment concludes there is "a significant opportunity for the NWT to benefit more from mining." I remain puzzled about why the Cabinet won't look at royalty rates. According to the budget papers, diamond production increased by 83 percent last year. I'm going to say it again, 83 percent last year, mostly thanks to Gahcho Kue. During the remaining years of diamond production in the NWT, why is government not looking at this possibility? I consider this a serious lapse in the duty of stewardship and fiscal oversight this Assembly was elected to perform. The refusal to even evaluate the adequacy and sustainability of revenue generation is not acceptable. This evaluation needn't have been tied to one sector under the Mineral Resources Act development. Because this is the last budget of this Assembly, we are not going to see any improvements in revenue, unless they are unforeseen. I strongly encourage Members of the next Assembly to renew their efforts to increase revenue based on evidence rather than received wisdom.
Mr. Speaker, as I have in other years, I again want to talk about the tremendous amount of time departmental staff, the executive council, and Regular MLAs put into budget development. This is time that could be spent on another of our roles that has been neglected in this Assembly, reviewing and improving legislation. Now the anticipated backlog of legislation is about to arrive. We have been talking about the budget since September. Mr. Speaker, I recommend that Regular MLAs study alternatives to the way we now produce budgets, with input from stakeholders of all kinds, including our colleagues on the other side of the House. If there is a way to free up time to make the budget process more efficient and to find more time to work on other legislation, then we should take it. Mahsi Mr. Speaker.
