Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 19, Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), 2017-2018, be read for the second time. Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes the Government of the Northwest Territories to make appropriations for operations expenditures for the 2017-18 fiscal year. It also sets out limits on amounts that may be borrowed by the Commissioner on behalf of the government, includes information in respect of all existing borrowing and all projected borrowing for the fiscal year, and authorizes the making of disbursements to pay the principle of amounts borrowed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, just a month ago, I stood here and noted the obvious. We Regular MLAs were at an impasse on budget negotiations with Cabinet. Today, we have a resolution which will pave the way for passage of the budget appropriation bill. It's a compromise we all worked hard on.
Mr. Speaker, it's important to note that we are not all of one mind about budget 2017. We have made some progress on the size of the cuts the Finance Minister originally proposed. They have gone down by a third, from $150 million to $100 million. That, in itself, is an achievement. Regular MLAs argued that steep cuts were not in the best interests of the NWT at this time. Every indicator, jobs, mineral exploration, population growth, is weak. Many of us on this side of the House believe this is the time for government to invest in job creation, not to make job cuts.
The government's plan is to reduce spending in order to generate a cash surplus. That surplus will then be invested in infrastructure. The cuts proposed in this budget will generate a small surplus by next March, about 1 per cent of spending. The Finance Minister's stated goal is to grow that surplus to 10 per cent of spending by the end of our term. If he is successful, he will then be able to claim that he has generated the first cash surplus in 10 years. It's a worthy goal, Mr. Speaker, but the timing isn't right.
The Finance Minister is proposing to reverse a deficit the government spent 10 years creating in just four years. The question is, at what cost to the people of the NWT? We are looking at up to 200 positions being eliminated this fiscal year and next, creating a major hit to the public service throughout the territory, and that's on top of small business and corporate job losses in the last 12 months.
These positions are being cut at a time when unemployment is trending up. The NWT Bureau of Statistics reported employment dropped by 700 people between December of 2016 and January this year, representing the lowest number of people employed in the NWT since May 2010. Mr. Speaker, as I said a month ago, we can't afford to lose any more jobs or see any more people move away. This government needs to ensure that budget 2018 doesn't include any further job cuts to the civil service and reverses growing unemployment with job creation and help with business development.
Mr. Speaker, Regular MLAs began reviewing departmental business plans in September. We were faced with an array of proposed cuts: to education, housing, Aurora College, wildfire research, and ground ambulance support. Our committee worked together to identify and roll back unacceptable cuts. Eventually we were able to preserve about $4.6 million in spending slated for the chopping block, most of it on jobs. That doesn't mean we got everything we wanted, as you will hear from some of my colleagues.
The other task Regular MLAs have undertaken is to promote investment by this budget in our economy and people. We were able to obtain additional spending on the economy, including enhancement of the Small Community Employment Support Program, the Mineral Incentive Program, the Winter Fishery Freight Program, and the Community Access Program -- for a total of $4.3 million. My hope is that these investments will assist people to find work at home in their communities.
The government heard our calls to increase funding for our people. The investment of $2.5 million in homecare is now included in the base funding for the Department of Health and Social Services, so it will be there every year going forward. This is good news for our growing and aging population of seniors.
Combined with the Finance Minister's commitment to roll back cuts to the seniors' home repair plan, we are on our way to fulfilling our commitment to enable seniors to age in place. Not only do most seniors want to stay in their own homes as long as possible, there are considerable savings for government if they make these investments. All this money gets spent here, in the NWT.
There are other investments to note as well. The Anti-Poverty Fund is going to double to $1 million annually. This is good news for grassroots organizations trying to reduce poverty in their communities. The fund was oversubscribed last year by a factor of 4:1. We have an undeniable problem with child poverty in this territory, and we can't expect a change in the multi-generational cycle of poverty until we invest in reducing the number of people who live in need of the basics.
I am also pleased to see money for youth in crisis to respond to communities where there has been a suicide. A suicide, Mr. Speaker, is a cry for help, and, unfortunately, there were a number last year. Suicides are also an indication of the pervasiveness of the mental health needs. These issues are often driven by addictions, so we need to be able to address mental health and addictions together, and this fund gives us a start.
Another unresolved question is how to accommodate existing programs that serve four-year-olds. The government has yet to come up with a plan to ensure that parents of four-year-olds will continue to have access to the full range of services they have now.
Mr. Speaker, Regular MLAs wanted to see additional investments in budget 2017. The gap between what the government offered and Regular MLAs requested was less than 1 per cent of the total $1.7 billion budget. It's a small sum but important to us on this side in terms of investing in our mandate.
Mr. Speaker, did we Regular Members get everything we wanted from the government in this budget? No, we didn't. We negotiated $4.6 million in reinstatements and about $14 million in new spending. We worked hard for more. We lost the battle to have government phase in increased lease rates for both Commissioner's and territorial lands. We failed to protect the winter ferry service on the Peel River and to increase funding for the Arctic Energy Alliance.
We elected to defer some spending requests until the next budget, such as expanding the men's healing program to communities outside Yellowknife. We recognize that with renewal set for this summer, expecting service providers to take the healing program on the road in the next fiscal year is overly ambitious. We also deferred spending on the Sambaa K'e winter road.
Mr. Speaker, my own takeaway from these budget deliberations is a deeper understanding of how consensus government works. The Regular MLAs decided to work together to increase our power to influence government. Together, we fought for things that have a direct importance to our ridings and for things that are unique to the ridings my colleagues represent. For example, money for the small community road access program is not relevant to Yellowknife Centre, but the additional supports for homelessness and addictions are.
We were able to get both. We were able to transcend our narrow concerns and work for the territory as a whole. I think we have a lot to show for this united approach and I hope we will continue to use it to provide oversight as well as improvements to spending going forward.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, before we start on Budget 2018, I want to reiterate that the goal of eliminating a 10-year deficit in four years is simply not realistic. The cost of reaching it is doing more harm than good for the people in my riding and beyond. I'd like to think that job cuts are behind us. If they aren't, we're going to replay this drama again next year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. It was almost a month ago that I gave my reply to the budget address. So what has changed since then in terms of the 2017-18 budget now that we have an Appropriation Bill in front of us? I will review of the budget process, the offer from Cabinet, the amended budget, and draw some conclusions.
The budget process. Let no one be fooled, the reduction targets are driving this budget in an effort to build larger surpluses to spend on infrastructure projects or roads to resources. That has been Cabinet's fiscal and economic development strategy since the mandate was proposed early in 2016.
In September 2016, Regular MLAs reviewed the departmental business plans during the presentations and exchanges Ministers and their staff over and over again, and even last week, made reference to the reduction targets given to each department and the overall target of cutting $150 million later reduced to $100 million.
Regular MLAs were very clear on items deemed to be unacceptable reductions and provided supporting rationale for our opposition. The response was to roll back some of the cuts and then offer some new initiatives that were largely based on issues raised in the House in the fall sitting. The new initiatives were not discussed with us first and did not necessarily reflect any particular approach or linkage to the mandate. Further reductions were also introduced that were greater than the cuts that had been rolled back.
Given the lack of consultation on the new initiatives, Regular MLAs spent considerable time developing our own list of strategic investments that were clearly driven by the mandate. These were completely rejected by Cabinet at first. After some discussion, one major reduction was rolled back and then a vague promise of more funding later on in our term for junior kindergarten. This morphed into the so-called "full funding" which, of course, is not true as clearly demonstrated by questioning of the Minister of Education.
Thus began our review of the main estimates. Regular MLAs deferred those activities within the departments where our proposed rollbacks of unacceptable changes were located and our new initiatives would be found. This continued until almost all the departments were deferred. Regular MLAs pared down our list of unacceptable reductions and new investments based on the discussion we heard in Committee of the Whole, which was subsequently discussed at a high level with the Minister of Finance.
The pared-down list was not requested and not discussed by Cabinet. An offer was presented to the Regular MLAs by the Finance Minister last week. More clarification on that offer was sought, but we still have not received a response. The offer was more than I had expected from Cabinet. The Finance Minister revealed the offer in the House on Friday of last week, which the majority of Regular MLAs appeared poised to accept.
Few will ever know how hard the Regular MLAs had to work and work together on behalf of our residents to extract any concessions from Cabinet. It was far worse than pulling wisdom teeth, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to avoid that again next year.
I have proposed a number of ideas to ensure that future budgets are developed in a more collaborative approach, and I'll discuss them again at the end of my speech here.
The requested revisions from the Regular MLAs amounted to a very minor proportion of a $1.7 billion overall budget, less than 2 per cent. To be clear, there were no true negotiations. Exchanges of written ultimatums were made with limited discussions. In my view, Cabinet was never willing to openly negotiate. What could be viewed as a command-and-control model of leadership does not seem consistent with the principles of consensus government.
I'll move on to the offer from Cabinet. I won't repeat the Minister's statement from last Friday, but I offer some observations and know that there are a number of limitations around the budget offer. There will be some welcomed new investment in the social envelope, including homecare, suicide prevention, and anti-poverty projects. I support these initiatives and clearly made the case for an increase in the anti-poverty funding in our Committee of the Whole discussions last month.
On the economics side, I support the increased investment in our fishing sector and small communities. However, increasing subsidies for mineral exploration is something I have some difficulty with. Repeated studies have shown, and GNWT's economic multipliers show, that if you invest the same amount of money in virtually any other economic sector more jobs will be created, whether it is arts and culture, agriculture, forestry or anything else. If the objective is diversify our economy and even to create a more equitable society, these funds could and should be better invested.
Now for the loose ends. The homecare increase may not be as large as it seems and some of it may actually be needed to make up for losses in federal funding. Ministers have noted that some new programs will need to be designed or old ones modified and implemented to get some of the new money out the door, including homecare, suicide prevention, and converting the Small Communities Employment Fund into a job creation program.
In my mind, the most problematic part of the Finance Minister's announcement about a budget deal last week was the mention of the deferral of Aurora College programs. As far as I can tell, there are no changes in Cabinet's approach. The Minister of Education has already approved that no new students will be allowed into the programs. Teachers will now be under-utilized and fewer grads will emerge, all leading to conditions supporting the full cutting of these programs. I cannot condone and do not support this approach.
The problem is with the programs, so redesign them and better support students. Don't cut the intake of students and then cut the programs.
I'd like to move on, Mr. Speaker, to the amended budget. I've already covered the good things in this budget in my reply a month ago, including 911, income assistance increases, homelessness, aging-in-place, and others. I can support these items, but let's look at the bigger picture. Regular MLAs attempted to get more strategic investments that benefit the greatest number of our residents, help diversify our economy, and create lasting benefits or avoid future costs.
We were able to extract over $20 million from Cabinet in rolling back some reductions and in making new investments. In terms of the overall budget of $1.7 billion, this amounts to 1.2 per cent. Undeniably, the budget as amended is better, but as my colleague, the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, said earlier in the session: good is the enemy of great, or in this case better does not necessarily mean good or even great.
Overall, this budget continues Cabinet's fiscal strategy of cuts to jobs, programs, and services. Seventy-nine positions will be lost through the discontinuation of programs and services and reductions. Whether the positions are currently filled or not is not the issue. Some of our neighbours will lose their jobs and some will move away. There will be less spending, less money in our local economies, less taxes paid, and reduced payments under the Territorial Formula Funding Agreement. Cabinet did not do any economic analysis of the impacts of these reductions and, if it was done, it was certainly not shared with Regular MLAs.
There are $68 million in reductions according to the budget address; more than three times the concessions the Regular MLAs were able to extract from Cabinet. Cabinet seems still locked into the roads to resources paradigm when we should be developing plans and strategies for adequate housing and early childhood programs so our residents can engage in the economy.
We need to get our housing out of core need while creating local jobs, provide stronger support for tourism, agriculture, and the fishing industry, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lower the cost of living, and develop a real post-secondary education system with a university of the Northwest Territories. These sectors also create more local jobs than non-renewable resource development. That was the kind of vision and leadership I had hoped would be reflected in the budget.
The only new tax initiative in this budget is a small increase in tobacco taxes. I cannot accept Cabinet's approach of continual cutting without some corresponding and commensurate effort at raising additional revenues. I will repeat my words from the reply to the budget address:
"The world, this country and the Northwest Territories have witnessed growing and unparalleled gaps between rich and poor. Our government has done little to address this issue through the tax system. For example, we should create a new income tax bracket for our high income earners. Competitiveness and capitalism rule in our race to the bottom.
If our government is to have any credibility and moral authority to implement the drastic austerity it preaches, there must be an equal effort to raise additional revenues through our tax system and a fair return to government from the extraction of our non-renewable resources."
Some of the specific reductions that I believe are particularly short-sighted and harmful include things like:
The environment is not really, in my opinion, being a high priority with Cabinet. No new investment in renewable or alternative energy, but a decrease through the sunsetting of $760,000 of funding leveraged by Regular MLAs during the bail-out of the NWT Power Corp. for diesel to replace hydro power during low water levels. To be clear, Regular MLAs proposed an increase in funding for the Arctic Energy Alliance of $1.5 million a year, but this was rejected.
Within Environment and Natural Resources there will be five positions cut at headquarters, four of these in corporate management, that are related to communications, policy, and legislation. My main concern is the internal capacity of this department, which has a lot on its plate with a high number of complex legislative initiatives, major public policy initiatives including the Climate Change Strategic Framework, and a heavy communications responsibility with caribou and fire management. This work is already well behind schedule, and I will continue to call attention to further delays.
The Department of Lands, which will also take some of the heaviest cuts, of almost 7 per cent, or almost $2 million. Travel for field operations or inspections is being slashed by a whopping 33 per cent, or $415,000. When pressed, the Minister could not produce any evidence of a reduced workload for our inspectors. We already have funding to do this work from the federal government, and this will now be diverted to fund a surplus for infrastructure. Hardly consistent with the promises made by our Premier at the time of devolution.
Severe cuts are being made to our efforts at economic diversification and business support. Seventeen per cent, or $2 million, will be cut from grants and contributions compared to last year.
There is about a 14 per cent reduction in the NWT Housing Corporation total expenditures between the revised 2016-17 estimates and 2017-18 mains. Not good when our housing stock continues to decline, without a real plan to get our housing out of core need.
Off-loading costs onto others jurisdictions, including the implementation of junior kindergarten. The Minister of Education continues to talk of full funding but neglects to mention that this is under the current formulas that do not include junior kindergarten students. This is not fooling anyone, especially the education authorities.
The contribution to education authorities is also to be reduced by $1.86 million at a time when they are being told to take in junior kindergarten students without increases to inclusive schooling and Aboriginal culture funding and no plan for busing of junior kindergarten students. Ordering school authorities to do more with less funding is not something I can support.
I've already mentioned the cuts to Aurora College. What a bad idea in the middle of a -- I guess now it's going to be called a foundational review, the outcome of which seems to inevitably point towards further cuts.
Departmental amalgamations are driven by the goal of cost cutting alone. Again, let no one be fooled that the motivation is to improve public services and find efficiencies. I am particularly concerned with the amalgamation of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations into the Executive, where there will be a continued decline in capacity to carry out negotiations on land rights with Indigenous governments.
With all of these significant cuts to the environment, education, housing, economic diversification, and our workforce, this budget takes us in the wrong direction, even with the changes the Regular MLAs have championed. At a time when our economy needs more public investment, Cabinet's reduction strategy rules the day.
How can we all avoid this painful process next time around? There need to be earlier, meaningful consultations with Regular MLAs about the overall fiscal context and direction of the budget, even before the development and review of the business plans or departmental budgets.
The review of the business plans was a failure this time around. There was little room for dialogue or discussion as Cabinet had already set reduction targets. Cabinet needs to be open to a more collaborative process, with real negotiations, done face-to-face rather than through written ultimatums. I think we also need to develop a process convention for the budget.
However, even with these changes, there are significant cuts in terms of the environment, our education system, and economic diversification. The overall direction from Cabinet's fiscal reduction strategy of cutting jobs, programs, and services to fund infrastructure continues unabated.
I cannot support this direction or that vision of the NWT and will be voting against the budget appropriation bill. At the same time, consensus government is not working well around the budgeting process. There were no real negotiations, only a series hard lines and ultimatums, and that includes our side, as well. Budget consultations with Regular MLAs have to be meaningful and earlier in the process to help determine the overall direction.
There are some exciting initiatives in this budget, and I sincerely thank my Cabinet colleagues and their staff and my Regular MLAs and our staff for all the hard work that we've done to get us to this point. However, on balance, I cannot support the 2017-18 budget, given the fiscal austerity and debt-management approach of Cabinet over the needs of my constituents and, indeed, all of our residents. I will be voting against this appropriation bill. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Nahendeh.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we started out on this adventure, looking at the business plans last September, it was about how we could deal with the cuts proposed by the government. We soon realized that we needed to start looking at this process a bit differently, so we focused on strategic investments that would help the NWT.
I would like to thank all Members for all the hard work we put into the 2017-18 budget process, Cabinet and Regular MLAs. I agree with the Finance Minister that Cabinet sort of listened and did listen and then made some of the Regular MLAs' proposed adjustments. These were reflected in his Minister's statement on Friday, March 3, 2017.
I am happy to see such things as:
Implementation of 911 service;
Supports to address homelessness and addictions;
Enhancement to the NWT Housing Corporation's repair programs to support seniors age in place;
Increased funding for junior kindergarten implementation costs for remaining schools;
Anti-Poverty funding;
A boost to the Community Access Program for small community roads;
A Mineral Incentive Program increase;
Enhancement of the Small Community Employment Support Program;
Increased homecare; and
Funding for a youth-in-crisis initiative.
As well, there was something the public was not aware of. We saw nine proposed reductions reversed, for a total of $3,974,500, and this past Friday Cabinet announced that reductions to Aurora College's teacher education and social work programs will be deferred, pending completion of the strategic review, which is now the functional review. Unfortunately, we will see no additional intake for the social work program or the teacher education program while this review is taking place. This deferral amounted to $690,000. All good news, right? Well, unfortunately, I can't say it is.
Mr. Speaker, when somebody offers you something, you need to consider it further and look into it a bit closer.
Unfortunately, for these past two budgets, senior bureaucrats were given a percentage that they needed to cut from their department's budget, and off they went. From my viewpoint, jobs cuts were the easiest approach. They looked at vacant positions, then at positions where the person was close to retirement, and then, finally, in my opinion, positions where they could use the standard answer: "We feel that the other staff can cover the workload," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Mr. Speaker, don't get me wrong. I understood that there might be a need to reduce positions if the departments followed a logical approach to doing things, such as a true zero-based budgeting exercise. I understand it will take work, but it would bring a better, evidence-based approach to the task.
It saddens me when this government cuts positions in the first place, but it is very frustrating when they look first at smaller regional centres to make the cuts. It makes me think that one of the items in our government's mandate, "We will develop and implement a strategy to increase employment in small communities," isn't really a priority.
If this government was sincere about making sure we had a strong NWT, they would seriously look at where cuts would have the least impact on all residents.
Designated authorities. Mr. Speaker, as I have said previously, I represent six communities and four of them are governed by designated authorities. We heard from the Auditor General of Canada about the importance of working with them. How does this government do this by cutting positions in the region that could help build capacity? Then we hear the logic, "Don't worry. We have somebody from Yellowknife or Fort Smith who will help out." That is lip-service, not real capacity-building. A phone call or a video-conference is not going to do this. Regional staff need to be in the communities, working with the people. If we are not doing that, we are going to continue in the same situation we are in now.
Business Development and Investment Corporation funding. Having a vibrant and competitive small business sector helps our northern economy prosper. Small businesses provide jobs, serve as a vital source of economic renewal, and provide valuable goods and services to our residents and other businesses.
One of BDIC's missions says that by building on the strength of our small businesses vibrancy, optimism and talent, we can ensure they become our path to prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, when I look at the BDIC, I see a Crown corporation that provides a range of programs and services to help northern businesses succeed, including start-up help. Unfortunately, it seems that this government may not agree. BDIC was treated like other departments. They were given an amount to cut and sent on their merry way. They did not ask BDIC how they could become more efficient and effective, they just cut.
Throughout my travels and talking with small business owners, I have seen and heard about the benefit of BDIC assisting communities in capturing economic development opportunities, and helping to develop a diverse and viable northern economy. Our small northern companies are very much the backbone of the NWT.
If the BDIC was able to identify funds that could be cut from administration, fine, but those savings need to be placed back into programs, not just be cut.
We need to promote and maintain economic development and employment. This is being done by the BDIC. I realize there is a need for the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment, but we need a strong, arm's-length corporation removed from the political environment that is able to:
Encourage the creation and development of businesses; and
Provide information and financial assistance to businesses.
The multi-sport funding is for games that are national or international competitions, and the government needs to take responsibility for running these games. Unfortunately, now the government is looking to the lottery system to cover these costs. This is wrong. The government needs to fund these games and stop taking funds primarily earmarked for grassroots development. It is very sad to see us now going down this road.
In the very beginning the college was given direction to make large cuts and these two programs were identified because they appear to be not as efficient and effective in their present form. Even with the strategic planning process being folded into the new foundational review, I can see the writing on the wall. I hope I am wrong, but I could see these two programs being eliminated.
I have witnessed this type of approach before. Stopping the intake of students while the foundational review is being done or the strategic plan is done or a study is being done causing students to lose interest in the program.
It means that students wishing to be educated in these professions must go down South, leaving behind their support system, or not go at all. Cutting the teacher education and social work programs will result in fewer northern teachers and social workers, simple as that. My estimate is that we will lose at least one-third of our entry-level students, maybe more.
Mr. Speaker, there will be lots of jobs for northern teachers if we can train them. Last year the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment tabled a labour market forecast from 2015 to the year 2030. It lists the top 50 occupations by job openings that will be available. Number two on the list? We will need to hire 777 elementary and kindergarten teachers, and that is the base-case estimate.
Number seven on the list is secondary school teachers. Our territory will need to fill at least 577 positions.
Number eight on the list of top occupations is social workers and community service workers. The estimated demand is 479 of them.
Coming in at number nine: early childhood educators and assistants. We will need to fill at least 448 positions between now and 2030.
Just to drive my point home, the 13th occupation is college and vocational instructors. We will need to hire for 382 positions if we don't eliminate their jobs and send our students south.
The demand for teachers at various levels tops the list of occupations in high demand. For comparison, our territory will only need to fill 285 financial manager positions and 386 for heavy equipment operators.
I would like the economic planners in Cabinet to add up those numbers as they cut Aurora College's budget to train teachers and social workers. I hope further study of the numbers will inform the functional review of Aurora College.
When you look at the TRC, these two programs were some of the ways the GNWT was addressing the recommendations. The TRC called on federal, provincial, and territorial governments to "provide the necessary funding to post-secondary institutions to educate teachers on how to integrate Indigenous knowledge and teaching methods into classrooms." By undermining these two programs, our government has done just the opposite.
I am also concerned that reductions to the core academic programs at Aurora College will have an impact on other programs. A college is a forum for students and a place to be inspired to learn new things. If we cripple our academic programs at Aurora College we take away opportunities for students who are upgrading as well. We have to recognize that academic programs lead to jobs too, and have produced many of our leaders over the years.
Mr. Speaker, we heard in this House that the teacher education and social work programs cost a lot more money to run than down South, with our smaller classes and lots of face-to-face time with instructors. Well, this is the reality of doing business in the North. Things cost more up North. However, it creates opportunities for students who wish to stay up North and be educated.
Instead of cutting the programs, we should be seeing how we can improve them while we continue student intake. Does this government want to get rid of the Business Incentive Program for northern businesses because it costs money? I hope not, but if you use the logic of the Minister and this government, we could see this happening sooner rather than later.
So some if not all of the million dollars is intended to make sure that some of the regions do not have reduced homecare services due to the potential change in the federal formula. This is a great idea, but the remaining $1.5 million won't be ready to roll out on April 1st.
The Health Minister made it very clear in the House that they have a significant amount of work to still do. The department is working on the NWT Care Services Action Plan, scheduled to be done by March 31st. The action plan includes homecare services, but this is only the first step.
The department needs to understand what services are necessary to residents and communities in the Northwest Territories. They need to assess the gaps, comparing what is out there against where the department needs to be. Only then will the department know what resources are needed to fill the gaps. This was the nub of the discussion.
As well, the department is not sure what the guidelines are for the new federal money. Unfortunately, all this work will take time and from what I heard in Committee of the Whole, money is not likely to roll out until sometime later this year.
I appreciate that we are working on a plan and that the Minister made a commitment to move that work along as quickly as he can. However, if it does not get done and all dollars are not fully spent, that money will remain in the government's general consolidated fund.
Mr. Speaker, this is where they lose me. Some of these funds will not be used, but we still have homecare issues. The lapsed money will then be used to help address our debt, not the strategic spending we are looking for. This is what I cannot support.
Youth-in-crisis initiative. Similar to homecare, the development of Youth-in-Crisis Program is very important to me. However, as we heard in Committee of the Whole, the department is working on the development of action plans. This will help quantify physical needs as we prioritize these initiatives in the 2018-19 fiscal year. This is more work on top of the NWT Care Service Action Plan that needs to be done.
We heard the first action plan will be done this summer which will give the department time to discuss things with the Social Development Committee during business planning sessions.
The problem with this is that the money is not out there helping the youth as needed. Again, like homecare, if the funds are not used for the youth, they will be needed instead to reduce debt.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the government is trying to bring lease rates for Commissioner's land and territorial lands more in line with each other, but we need to look at issues around affordability; maybe a phased in approach, and expanding land tenure opportunities. We need a solution for people paying unreasonably high taxes on lands in areas with unsettled claims.
Like the other two areas I spoke about previously, the Department of Education, Culture and Employment plans to spend the next several months looking at how to ensure that additional money is fully utilized.
However, if the funds are to be used for subsidies and partnerships only, it will not actually be used for that purpose at all. Again, Mr. Speaker, the biggest problem is that if communities do not have their share of the money, they cannot access this program. If they cannot access this program, people cannot go to work.
If people cannot go in to work, they must go on income support. Not a good solution. When asked in the House if the program rules could be changed, the response was that ECE will look at a more comprehensive approach and strategy for small community employment by the fall.
With this limited approach, I wonder when -- and if -- we will see the job creation that is needed in the small communities.
To sum it all up, Regular Members have done a lot of work and negotiated hard with Cabinet to improve this budget, and it is definitely improved since the business plans we saw last fall. In the end, this budget fails because it was so focused on cuts to spending without thinking enough about the impacts. Cutting jobs in communities and deep reductions to Aurora College will not bring savings in the long run. This approach does not serve my region well, and I do not think it serves the Northwest Territories well either.
Mr. Speaker, these are the reasons I will not support the 2017-18 budget. Mahsi Cho, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?
---Carried
