Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 24th, 2011

[Margaret Melhorn]

I spoke earlier about the revenue potential and the economic development potential of our territory. It is significant. There are mineral, oil, and gas resources there that could be developed if we had more infrastructure to make the resources more accessible. With respect to administration of our revenues, I think we can demonstrate an excellent track record with respect to maintaining sound fiscal policies. When we sought a credit rating from Moody's, which was the first credit rating obtained by a territory in Canada in 2005, we were particularly interested in having an independent evaluation of our fiscal management and our fiscal policies, and we were very pleased at that time to receive an excellent rating from Moody's. We have confidence in our ability to manage our affairs.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I have a question regarding the evaluation of your capacity to borrow for exploration and development, of your tax revenues and so on. Without the limit prescribed in the legislation mentioned by Mr. Forbes, how much money do you think you could borrow?

[Margaret Melhorn]

Just to clarify, do you mean our ability to raise funding through debt by borrowing?

There are potential projects in the Northwest Territories that would generate their own revenues, particularly in hydro development, that would go a long way to help develop our economy to provide energy for the mining sector. So we're interested in pursuing those types of projects that would have a source of revenue associated with them from the sale of power. That's the type of investment, in particular, that we would like to pursue.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Melhorn.

My colleague may have a question.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Bevington, you surely know that we intended to start clause-by-clause study of the bill in a few minutes.

In answer to my colleague, Mr. Payne, you said that you would agree to let the Auditor General study the bill. You know that this could indefinitely delay its passage. Is it really necessary for the Auditor General to review the implications of Bill C-530?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

That is a different question from what was asked me, and it's something that of course the committee could make a determination on, and that is, whether there was any requirement for the Auditor General. I don't think so. We have the main players who are engaged in this particular issue.

I feel this is a political issue. This is an issue of regional sovereignty. It's an issue of responsible government. It's an issue of the right of the people of the Northwest Territory for equality based under the political rights that we have under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country. What's the Auditor General going to say to that? What's she going to say to the basic political message that needs to be delivered here? I don't see that it's so important. But if the committee made the decision to see more witnesses, I would respect that. I would respect what the committee wants to do with this because this is a very important issue for my constituents.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Merci, Mr. Lemay.

Just before we go to the next question, members, we do have the letter that was referenced in the earlier round on the request from Mr. Rickford. It is only in English, so if there is agreement to circulate the letter, we're happy to do that. Assuming there is not, we will receive the letter and have it translated and circulated to members. You're nodding heads, so we'll proceed on that basis.

Now we'll invite Mr. Rickford for seven minutes. Go ahead.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I actually don't have any line of questioning here. I'm concerned that we have two items on the go.

First of all, we'd like to see the letter, and there is a translation process there. Second, the member, who is also a witness, has just said that he supports further witnesses. I'm not so sure there are a lot more witnesses out there, but he did agree specifically with us that we would benefit from the Auditor General for the Government of the Northwest Territories to be here.

So to that extent I would, perhaps by way of motion, put it out there that we can't proceed with clause-by-clause today because we have these two steps to take. And, thoughtfully, there is a process there that we have to go through.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

To the first point, on the letter, you understand that we can't circulate it today.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I completely understand that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It's just to clear that up. So we will get it translated and circulated to members.

On the second point, is your motion that we not proceed to clause-by-clause, but to do what, then? To ask the Auditor General to appear before the committee?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Yes, to come before the committee....

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, and is it just the Auditor General?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

And that we receive the letter in both languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

So it's that the committee not proceed to clause-by-clause today, that it invite the Auditor General for further study on this bill--

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

And that we're in receipt of the translated letter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

--and that the letter referenced to Mr. Bevington, dated October 20, be received by the committee before further consideration of clause-by-clause.

That is the motion.

Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, I cannot agree with my colleague. This is not the question I asked. As a matter of fact, I asked Mr. Bevington what he thought about a possible review of the bill by the Auditor General. He said he would agree if that was the will of the committee. But this is not what I want. I want clause-by-clause study of the bill to be done today. If the Auditor General has to intervene in this file, she can do it when the bill is reported back to the House. It would then be possible to know how the situation has evolved in regards to the increase of the borrowing limits.

I think there is an attempt to delay the process. I do not want to be bothered anymore with the Canada economic action plan or a future road to Tuktoyaktuk. Mr. Chair, this has nothing to do with the bill. We are here to advance this file through clause-by-clause study of the bill. We should therefore vote against the parliamentary secretary's proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Just to be clear, if we proceed to clause-by-clause, typically we will also be entertaining a question to report this bill back to the House. Once it is reported back to the House, the only consideration for further study will be by the House, not by this committee.

I have Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I think it will be really clear shortly how each party stands on Mr. Rickford's motion, so I think the chair should bring a vote on the motion fairly quickly, because it will be obvious where everyone stands.

But if the letter is a big concern, we have no problem. It's a short letter. You could just read it out and the translators will translate it while you're reading it and we'll know what's in it.

The other point is, if there are more witnesses--the Auditor General, etc.--they could easily come before the Senate committee, so I don't think we need to hold up our review of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's a possibility.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I think Mr. Bagnell makes two very, very relevant points. There's nothing prohibiting the letter being read into the record, with translation. There's nothing that would prevent the Auditor General from passing an opinion if she chooses. She may not pass an opinion on this particular piece of legislation outside the realms of this committee. That would be available to us as parliamentarians in a third reading debate, which we all know is probably a little bit of a long shot at this particular point, but nonetheless, there will be an opportunity for her to do that.

I'm not sure what the procedure is around auditors general commenting on bills that may have some impact prior to them being brought into force or brought into effect by either the House of Commons or the Senate. For instance, I can't recall the government having the Auditor General do a review of their budget, their prison agenda, their jets agenda, or any of their fiscal policy. If somebody can tell me what piece of financial legislation or fiscal policy they have called the Auditor General in to do a review of, I'd like to see it. But I don't think it happens.

I think the real crux here is, do we want to get to clause-by-clause? The motion speaks to postponing clause-by-clause on what I would call very spurious grounds that don't make much sense. So I call the question on the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

I have another couple of speakers. Let's go to—

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Is the question debatable once we call the question? What's the ruling?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Well, you can.... We have speakers on the list, but if you want to proceed.... I think we can resolve this fairly quickly. The question is before members. Others have asked to speak on it.