Thank you, Mr. Speaker. WHEREAS the Government of the Northwest Territories is considering signing a Final Agreement on Devolution of Lands and Resources in the imminent future;
AND WHEREAS the agreement, if signed, will result in new resource revenues accruing to the Government of the northwest Territories beginning in 2014-2015;
AND WHEREAS the Government of the Northwest Territories has committed 25 percent of ongoing future resource revenues to Aboriginal governments;
AND WHEREAS it is desirable that there be public transparency and accountability in where the remaining 75 percent of resource revenues will be used and directed, and that new spending be reflective of four guiding priority areas of the Legislative Assembly;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that this Legislative Assembly proposes on an annual basis the GNWT’s share of the new Devolution Agreement resource revenues be expended according to the following formula:
one-quarter to infrastructure investment;
one-quarter to one-time Assembly priorities;
one-quarter to the Heritage Fund; and
one-quarter to debt repayment.
AND FURTHER, that the Government of the Northwest Territories seek public input on the above proposal for the use of new resource revenue and report back to the Assembly on the results of those consultations;
AND FURTHERMORE, that the Government of the Northwest Territories provides a comprehensive response to this motion within 120 days.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you. This motion is not about devolution itself, it’s about what to do with the resource revenue after the Devolution Agreement has been signed and resources finally start flowing to the Northwest Territories.
If we don’t start providing some guiding principles, whether we call them pillars, whether we call them ideas, if we don’t start providing these, in typical and usual fashion, our Cabinet will find new ways and define it as invest the money under the guide of government priorities all built under their own guidance. This motion helps Members guide where this revenue is going. On top of that, it speaks to public engagement.
This motion wouldn’t be here today without the good support of my colleague Mr. Nadli, and I want to give thanks to that for helping get this motion on the floor.
This also speaks to different types of investments, but it’s a structure of how and what we should do with the public money for the public with their guidance. So, Mr. Speaker, this might not be the be-all and end-all final formula of how this resource money should go. Maybe after good public consultation, a little public input if the government is willing to put a little grease on the wheel and go back to the public and ask them what do they think their money should be doing and how do they think their money should be invested back into our people, maybe the formula might be slightly different. It’s not up to me to say.
The important thing here today is to create a mechanism so people have a chance to give some ideas and show people where their money is going when it’s a resource revenue and how we can help direct it for useful purposes.
As a reminder, in case I forget later, I will want a recorded vote on this particular issue.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Nadli, seconder of the motion.
I’d like to thank my colleague Mr. Hawkins for initiating this motion. I understand that down the road the government will be receiving a portion of the $70 million or so. Initial thoughts were that it should be invested perhaps in infrastructure, Heritage Fund or debt repayment. The question should be: Should we invest more in the public sector or less in the private sector? This is an opportunity for the public to have a say in terms of how resource revenues should be decided. Therefore, I support the principle of this motion. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very glad that this motion has come forward and I’d like to thank the mover and the seconder for bringing it to the floor.
I’ve spoken to the issue of new resource revenues, yesterday, when I was speaking to the devolution motion and the debate that we had there. This motion particularly identifies four areas where these resource revenues should go. Certainly, one-quarter is going to aboriginal governments and I find no fault with that whatsoever.
The other three areas I think need to be debated. I don’t necessarily agree with these four priorities as they are laid out. But I think what this motion asks for, and what needs to be emphasized in this motion, is we need to have a debate not only within the House and amongst Members but it needs to go to the public. I spoke to that yesterday. It needs to go to the public so we can get their ideas.
I‘m sure there are ideas out there which we have not heard. We’re not all that brilliant, all of us. We need to hear from the public what ideas they have, consider those and then make an educated decision. We didn’t involve the public, to my view, as much as we should have when we were talking about the Devolution Agreement, and this is an opportunity to go back to the public and say we maybe made a mistake the first time around. Here’s an opportunity for you to tell us what we should do with our revenues.
These revenues belong to the people. They don’t belong to the House. They don’t belong to individual Members. They don’t belong to Cabinet. They belong to the people. It’s coming from the resources of the people and I think we need to hear from them. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise here in support of this motion. I want to applaud Mr. Hawkins for bringing a visionary motion to the table here. I would like to thank Mr. Nadli for seconding it to allow for debate here today.
Not less than 24 hours ago here in this Chamber, we witnessed something monumental, something historical that was put to us. Now we’ve got to roll up our sleeves and get down to brass tacks because we know there’s money coming into the coffers. I think this motion speaks to the vision we have to have as residents of the Northwest Territories.
What we have before us are guidelines. We aren’t saying this is the be-all and end-all, Mr. Speaker. This is the starting point for us to discuss what we are going to do with this money moving forward. I think what a lot of Members fear is this money could turn into a slush fund for our Cabinet colleagues to identify their priorities. We’ve got a lot of competing priorities. Everyone here on this side of the House always has issues to deal with that we can actually improve our constituents. Mr. Menicoche’s Highway No. 7, for example. It’s one of those things we hear time and time again.
Not that I want to use this analogy, but we tell our children, be good stewards with your money, put some in the bank and spend a little and have some fun. This is kind of what we’re saying. Not to say the Cabinet Members are a bunch of children, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is these are guidelines. It’s something that Cabinet has to listen to because this is coming from people on this side of the House who represent many of the residents across the Northwest Territories.
As you heard, the public has the right to have some input on this. This is their money, the public’s money, the residents’ money. This is hard earned tax money. These are people that believed in devolution. They are the ones who said yes, we want devolution. It’s their money.
To restrict or put a caveat and not having an opportunity to say where that money is going would really be an unfortunate day, Mr. Speaker. So I will be voting in support of this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The principle of the motion is one that’s pretty interesting indeed, and with the new dollars that we’re getting, I do support that we have to have a debate. I feel that we are going to have a debate anyway, once we get these revenue resources into the government budget.
However, I don’t feel that I could support the motion at this time in regard to the therefore section allocating specific percentages of dollars into different areas within our government system. When we go through the business plans, we see areas such as deferred maintenance, infrastructure projects, areas that reflect our social conditions in the communities that I feel we could do a one-time-off investment in a lot of areas, specifically in some of the deferred maintenance within our government structure, our government assets, as well as some of our housing units. We do have a homeless issue that we can address. We spoke with the Anti-Poverty Strategy and they said their first main priority is housing. We could address that in a one-time shot. We could look at where our priorities are and where we go with this government.
By divvying up the dollars into four different sections, that puts a limit on where we can start speeding up these projects and becoming more successful and putting action into some of the areas that need it.
I’ve been in this government for 20 months. I see where a lot of the needs are, and I do agree with the principle of the motion, but I don’t think today I can vote in favour of the motion, only because I think there are investments, there are areas of importance that we need to focus on. I don’t feel that we should be limiting the dollars that we’re going to be getting into areas at this time.
At this time, I will not be supporting the motion based on the therefore clauses and the percentages of dollars. I feel that we’re going to be limiting our government, limiting our decisions and where those dollars can be spent, but I do appreciate the efforts put on by Mr. Hawkins and other Members who are supporting this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to my colleagues for bringing this motion forward. I guess I find myself aligning with Ms. Bisaro’s comments, so I won’t repeat them all, but I don’t necessarily agree with the formula, but I strongly support taking the question to the public, and I very much appreciate that. That’s the main thrust of this motion. These are public dollars. In my view, I think, in the short term, all of the dollars should go into the Heritage Act Fund while we have a mature discussion and really examine where we see the needs and where the public would like to see these dollars going. I’m also not sure to what degree we can bind future governments on these dollars. They will be part of our annual budget and so on. But they do represent new revenues and that does qualify them for some serious discussion and serious public participation and might go some way to help bind up those wounds that the public is feeling about being left out of this sort of thing in the past. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, cannot support this motion at this time. I do agree with some of the investments that are listed, but I believe this process is not quite completed yet. We still need a number of people to sign on to the actual final agreement, and I believe once that is complete, then this government could move forward as to deciding where we are going to spend those funds. There are a lot of projects that the communities, the smaller communities would like to see, and I believe that some focus should be put into those areas, building up our infrastructure. We have schools, for example in Aklavik, that are 40 to 50 years old, yet it’s not receiving any attention. We need new schools in our communities, new nursing stations. I believe that once everything is signed with the final agreement, then we as a group can sit down and do some brainstorming as to how this fund would be best spent. I believe now is not the time.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We fully recognize that there is a process ahead of us here as we sign the Devolution Agreement. The money and resources won’t flow until probably 2015-16, that we have time for the debate and discussion about devolution and all facets of it including the resource revenue sharing.
I would comment, I’m continually surprised by some of the Member’s opposite that talk about the budgeting process we have, which is the most comprehensive and inclusive in the country, and make it sound like a budget appears in this House that is totally untouched by them with no involvement and is not their document, and that every budget that has been through this House that I can recollect has pretty well been done on unanimous support at the end of the day.
We do have a very inclusive budgeting process. I’ve committed as Finance Minister, from the start of this Assembly, that we would do budget consultations, and we’ll do that again this fall. Clearly, this will be one of the items on the agenda, one of the main big ticket items. Since the last budget, we’ll have signed the Devolution Agreement. We’ll have the resource revenue issue to have those discussions.
While some say this is just a general start of the process, there are some very specific targets in there: 25 percent, 25 percent, 25 percent, 25 percent. The Member for Kam Lake indicated a Cabinet slush fund. I’m not sure what…
---Applause
I’m sorry. Let me stand corrected.
---Laughter
Let the record show it was the Member for Range Lake. Give credit where credit is due for the comment about a Cabinet slush fund. The budget and the budget process we have is under enormous scrutiny, so I defy anybody to stand up and show me, because after all these years, 18 years, if there’s a Cabinet slush fund, I’d like to know where it is, because we’re constantly borrowing money to try to meet the demands of this House. There are those that would say 25 percent for one-time legislative priorities could be easily interpreted or construed to be pretty discretionary type of funding.
The commitment, of course, is budget consultation. We recognize that this is a start of a process. This motion, I believe, is somewhat premature, given the time ahead of us to sort this out through a more considered forum where we’d have more debate and discussion.
With those comments, I’ll just note that since this is the direction of Cabinet, we will be abstaining.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. I’ll allow the mover of the motion to have final remarks. Mr. Hawkins.
Well, certainly the fact that we had that Freudian slip on the record, I’m going to say that, quite frankly, I agree with Minister Miltenberger about this and the characterization of slush fund, because the reality is, it is a Cabinet slush fund. That’s the fact. I mean, the Cabinet doesn’t want to call it a slush fund because they have all the money at their fingertips.
The fact that when we had to ask for a $3 million adjustment to the budget just here a few months ago, they went kicking and screaming and complained, oh, woe is us. The Members try to have some influence on the budget and they go, the sky is falling. Now we just want to set up some parameters and say how we think the public’s money should be spent with the public’s opinion. Let the public have the say. Well, you can play that violin, Minister Miltenberger, all you want, but it’s true.
If we don’t provide some guidance and guidelines with public input, and I want to thank those who saw that exactly. That’s all this is, is about trying to set up a framework and a structure to get public input on.
The Cabinet will divvy this up at the FMB table. The Cabinet will scribe it out, and then they’ll send us almost the finalized 99 percent version and say, what do you think? Oh, by the way, go fight for the scraps on the side. Fight amongst each other. You know, fight, fight, fight. And then we know you’ll never get unanimity because there’s 11 of you from 11 different regions; and don’t worry, we’ll play divisive politics; and don’t worry, it will all be fine.
The reality here is all this motion here is, is a framework. It’s the people’s money. Let’s not put barriers in front of the people’s money. Let’s not be afraid of what the people have to say about their money. This gives the chance of the public to get out there early. This is visioning amongst all colleagues. This isn’t just from me. This is all colleagues. You hear Mr. Blake talk about wanting infrastructure. This motion talks about infrastructure, about investing in our communities, our schools, our houses, one-time Assembly priorities.
I’ve come to three Assemblies so far and every time the new Assembly begins, they say they’d like these as priorities, and every time the Finance Minister walks out the door and he goes, well, I’ll see what I can do. Where am I going to cut? Who’s going to give it up? Here is a plan.
I tabled earlier just a bit of an illustration and I talked about where the extra money will go, and it shows it’s over and above normal operational revenue. It’s a way to work with all Members. The moaning and groaning from Cabinet is because they don’t want Members to have a say on where money goes. That’s it. They don’t want to give up the piece of the pie. It is not about us controlling it. It is about being involved in the process up front.
When I talk about a Heritage Fund, again, these are just ideas, a quarter here and there, but these are ideas that say we have to invest now and to the future such as the Heritage Fund. If we don’t do it today, it will be almost impossible tomorrow.
The last point on here on debt repayment, again, if we don’t seriously get committed behind these initiatives, it’s things like this will always be in trouble. You have other jurisdictions who do not have the financial management the Northwest Territories has, which we have an amazing style and good procedures here, but the fact is, this shows we are in control of our debt. Our debt is almost maximized. Throw in another $300 million project – the Inuvik-Tuk highway – all of a sudden it stresses our credit limit. How much more money do we have to pay? People are going to want an extension of the Deh Cho Highway. How much more money? We have so many things.
These are just pillars of ideas. I think enough has been said, but the important thing is, this is a framework to take to the people, because it’s their money. The fact that the obstruction or fighting of this or the concern that we are trying to control anybody, it is not that at all. It is about setting up ideals and principles by the public for the public so they can be involved. It is their money. We have nothing to hide and we certainly have nothing to be ashamed of by asking the public of their opinion and getting their fingerprints on this, because otherwise, they have no say and they have to go through every process.
It is a challenging process even for those in this building. It is almost enormously impossible if you are not in this room making some of these decisions. That is why it’s important to go to the public.
