Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the budget figure shown in our budget books for this year is the same as what it was last year. Yet in light of that, I understand that the Canadian Mental Health Association, who runs the program in Yellowknife, was told they had to apply for only the first six months of funding this year and that the funding will end in November.

On application to the department, they've been told there is very little chance they will be able to find enough money to carry on with the funding program. My question to the Minister is he says there have been some increases, but where has it gone? Obviously, there isn't enough money for the programs to continue. The CMHA has been told in Yellowknife that the program is out of funding as of November.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Since 1991, there has been quite a substantial increase in funding; growing from about $14,000 total a year to these groups, to now in excess of $150,000. The funding has stayed the same in the last couple of years. The difficulty is trying to get the federal government to be clear about how they're going to continue funding this government in housing and in the base funding we get every year. The funding to these groups has stayed the same in the last couple of years.

What we indicated at the beginning of the year is, by letter, telling them the funding is going to stay the same as last year, but that they should look at the end of November to making a proposal to the department. And if we found any money internally, we would do everything we can to fund them. The funding that started at the beginning of the year is the same as last year's. It's intended to carry them through the entire year. As we indicated in November, they should consider providing proposals to us and we had hoped to be clear by now, whether or not there would be savings in any of the programs. So far, we have not identified any. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Supplementary. The Minister has confirmed that the amount of funding was to be the same this year as last year. My understanding is the amount that has been forwarded to groups this year...For instance, CMHA last year got $50,000; this year they only got $39,000. They have been told there is not much chance they're going to get the further $16,000 to bring them up to whatever...The numbers may not be accurate, Madam Speaker, but the point is they've been told they will not be getting as much as they did last year.

Since the Minister had said the funding has stayed the same, can he advise me why it is that the programs are not getting the same amount of funding they did last year?

Madam Speaker, there is going to be an attempt on my part to find some money because I think the groups were under the impression that they can -- and they have, in fact, I think budgeted for eight months, the allocation they got for 12 months last year. I think we've made a mistake in the administration of the program. I will do what I can to find some money to offset the difficulties these groups have encountered. I think this is a result of poor communication on our part.

Mahsi, Madam Speaker. I would like to make a reply to the 1995-96 capital budget address of the government. My reply will be limited to a brief overview on downsizing and restraint in the territorial economy.

One of the central financial features of the territorial economy is the very large role that our government has come to play. Something in the order of 80 per cent of the territorial gross domestic product is made up of government expenditures. The federal government's formula financing grant and other federal transfers make up most of these expenditures. It follows then that any restraint measures on the part of the federal government will have a major impact on our territorial economy. We have already experienced the effects of recent restraint measures of the federal government.

Madam Speaker, in 1988-89, the federal government imposed a GDP ceiling and introduced the tax effort adjustment factor in the new five-year formula financing agreement of 1990. The GDP ceiling has cost this government millions of dollars in lost revenue over the past four years.

Madam Speaker, in terms of the two largest transfer programs to the provinces and territories, the EPF and CAP, restraints began as far back as 1983 when the federal government capped the escalation formula for education, part of the EPF transfer at six and five per cent for 1983 and 1984 respectively. However, most recently, Madam Speaker, in 1990, both CAP and EPF transfers were put under further federal restraint. In 1991, the freeze on federal payments to provinces and territories for health and post-secondary education under EPF for 1990-91 and 1991-92 was further extended through the end of 1994-95, after which a partial indexation formula of GNP less three percentage points is to apply.

Madam Speaker, also in 1990-91, the so-called cap on CAP was put in place. This limited federal transfer payments for cost-sharing welfare and social services. Also beginning in 1990, social housing began to cut back in this country, and as Members here are all too aware, this program has now been eliminated.

Madam Speaker, earlier this year, the new Liberal government in Ottawa announced that in 1995-96, transfers to all provinces and territories for CAP and the post-secondary component of the EPF will be frozen at the 1994-95 levels until the social policy reforms are put into place in 1996-97. The intent here is that these transfers will be no greater in 1996-97 than in 1993-94, with savings expected to be at least $1.5 billion.

Madam Speaker, the idea of downsizing and restraining have been central concepts in the budgetary politics of Canada during the 1980s and 1990s. This government has now clearly adopted and -- particularly over the life of this Assembly -- instituted various downsizing and restraint measures.

Madam Speaker, restraining budgets is a process for limiting and lessening the size and role of the public sector. The central idea behind restraint seems to be a balanced society which effectively means smaller government and less state intervention. Some of the core ideas here include the inherent superiority of the private sector and market mechanisms in producing and allocating most goods and services. Favoured restraint methods and techniques are generally privatization, deregulation and spending limits. We have clearly seen these methods at work here in the Northwest Territories, instituted at the federal level and through the Government of the Northwest Territories budget and policy process.

Madam Speaker, the point I want to make here is that restraint and downsizing may be the inevitable evils that government must institute in today's fiscal climate. However, nowhere else in this country does the government play such a massive and important role in employment and business development than here in the Northwest Territories. It follows then that nowhere in Canada will government restraint and downsizing measures affect the macro and local economies as severely as in the Northwest Territories. Madam Speaker, we simply cannot follow similar fiscal restraint goals as our federal and provincial counterparts.

In closing, we must make a very strong case with the federal government that restraint and downsizing measures have a much greater impact in the Northwest Territories than anywhere else in Canada. We must ensure the federal government understands this point during our current negotiation to renew the formula financing agreement and other financially related negotiations with the federal government. Mahsi cho.

---Applause