Mr. Todd, the way I understand it is that Mr. Gargan does not know what "incorporated result measures" means. Perhaps the mover can explain, in speaking to the motion, this so that the Member can be sure of what that means. Mr. Todd.

What we are saying is, if we are going to expend large sums of money with respect to the capital budget -- for example, parks -- and we are told that this is going to create employment opportunities for the people within that park. We are not being told definitively -- or even close to it -- what kinds of employment opportunities, how many opportunities or what the net benefit is going to be with respect to that expenditure.

It is the same thing with schools. We are told that we would acquire high schools in the communities, yet the position of the standing committee on finance has been that we do not know how successful high schools in the communities have been. We need more detail and more quantifying of the net effect of capital spending.

Thank you, Mr. Todd, for clarifying your motion. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to support this motion. My position is that in order for any capital projects to be implemented in any community, the Members are the ones that should be justifying why those capital projects are there and you make an argument and sell it to the finance committee, as well as to other Members and to the government. It takes away from Members one avenue to justify why certain capital projects should be in your community, Mr. Chairman. It certainly puts the finance committee in a position where they are the ones who have the final say on whether the project is justified or not, but it certainly does not give people who are not on it that opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Gargan. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a tendency to disagree with my colleague. First of all, every Member has the right to indicate their concerns when our budget comes through and into the House. The intent of this motion, I believe, is being misunderstood. What we are recommending is that the government incorporate some mechanism to determine what the results would be of a capital project that is to be in any community and what effect it would have. Right now, there is no way to measure results and whether or not those dollars are being spent properly.

For example, take the community of Pine Point. Look at the millions of dollars we put into that community. What does this government have from that? What did we get from the millions of dollars that we put in to build a new school? There is no mechanism to determine whether or not the dollars we are spending are justified. That is all we are asking. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Marie-Jewell. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This business of putting in results and having some kind of system for knowing whether we are achieving efficiency or whether things are being effective, in my opinion, does the opposite to what some Members may think would happen. If we are happy to proceed with a system where, even if it is lousy, we can convince somebody else that we should do it anyway, that is a terrible message to give to the public. You know, "I want it. It is no good, but I want it." We have to stop doing that. What we have to have is some basis for justifying what we do and what we continue to do. For example, if a locally elected person, or one of us, can demonstrate to this House that we have been doing something and we can give 50 reasons, 50 measures, which show that this is a stupid thing to do, then we do not look like very wise people if we go ahead and do it.

What this system would do is to give us ordinary Members ammunition to support our case. If, for example, we go ahead and -- using the example that has already been given -- grades are being extended, and we find out that attendance does improve and that grade levels improve, that dropouts go down, that enrolment is up, and parents are happier -- if you could find that there are 30 or 40 things that you measure and can show that what you are doing is good, we should be a happy bunch of campers, because then we have made a wise decision and we can say, "Boy, I feel good. We have done something; we have spent money, and look at all the great things that we can prove have happened as a result of our doing it." That is what measurement is all about.

If, for example, you have a policy and you decide that you are going to build something and in the policy you are going to make sure that you are going to create so many jobs and that those jobs would be, in fact, undertaken by local people -- that they would be spending their money in local stores, that the suppliers, in fact, would be people who have all kinds of northern interconnections, that the money stays in the North --you could build six, seven or eight measures and then you could say, "Wow, this is really working and I can prove it." That is the kind of stuff that I need, as an elected person, if I make a decision.

I cannot make a decision and say, "I support this because it will make him or her happy." It has to be something that can show that it is really being responsible to all the people of the Northwest Territories, that we are making decisions on the basis of results, that what we are doing pays off and is good. Thank you.

To the motion. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand where Brian is coming from with regard to schools. There are 200 students, so there are 200 reasons why we should build a school. The other thing is that we do not know whether or not, Mr. Chairman, the old school is doing the same thing as a new school would. If you build a new school and the result is that the enrolment goes up, morale is up and employment goes up, then let us all build a new school if that is the result of it, Mr. Chairman.

We have arguments with regard to parks. In order to measure any results, we have to employ a person in each park that we have in the Northwest Territories. We could come up with a questionnaire or something to measure whether our investment in parks is worth it.

Mr. Chairman, during the last years as a Member, one thing I have noticed is that even though the school at Fort Providence was built in 1959, you see new schools being built as early as 1974. I do not know whether or not the result is that we have a larger enrolment except that maybe some Ministers might have had capital projects allocated to their constituencies. You could, perhaps, measure this under the main estimates. But, for capital projects, you cannot measure this because you have had that establishment put into your community, and you keep an analysis for the next two or three years to determine whether or not the result of having this capital project in your community has boosted some kinds of statistics. It is difficult.

I cannot go for results until I have the capital project to justify whether or not it was worth it. I cannot see a committee of people determining what is best for my community based on the government's argument as opposed to not hearing mine.

To the motion.

Question.

Motion To Incorporate Result Measures Into Capital And Main Estimates, Carried

Question has been called. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Motion That Cabinet Consult Finance Committee Prior To Approval Of Special Warrants Exceeding $500,000, Carried

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that cabinet consult with the standing committee on finance prior to the approval of any special warrant in excess of $500,000.

The motion is in order and is being distributed. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. Those in favour of the motion? Those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Motion For An Independent Evaluation Of Capital Planning Program In Two Years, Carried

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the committee recommend an independent evaluation of the capital planning program be undertaken in two years to measure the effectiveness of the new capital management planning and allocation process.

The motion is in order and is being distributed. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like some clarification regarding an independent evaluation of the capital management planning and allocation process. Does this mean that someone goes from community to community meeting with community members to evaluate how the capital project helps the communities?

To the motion. Do you wish to respond, Mrs. Marie-Jewell?

Mr. Chairman, the motion indicates that within two years we would like any new capital management planning and allocation process to be evaluated, not necessarily by going to every community. Right now, there is no process in place that does an evaluation of any type of capital planning. Our earlier motions reflected that. This just indicates that. Thank you.