Thank you Mr. Speaker. The cuts that were determined by the Federal Government which is approximately 5% of our base, roughly about $60,000,000 was for the period of time that the formal financing arrangement was in place which is until the 31st of March, 1999, so I cannot speak for Mr. Martin, but I am fairly confident at this time that I do not think there will be, but I have to qualify any other significant cuts to the base. So I think it is important to say that cuts to the base of $60,000,000 was only one part of the fiscal problem of this government. The other part of it was the forced growth in the social envelope. The lack of job opportunities, burgeoning population base, demands for services etc, so you cannot just simply up load all the problem on Mr. Martin and the Federal Government, we have to take some responsibility. I have, as the Minister of Finance, as we move forward in a two-year strategy to balance the budget for the future children of the two new territories. Thank you.

Thank you. Oral question, Mr. O'Brien.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker my question is to the Minister responsible for the new interim manufacturing policy. I am

not quite sure if that is Mr. Todd, or the Premier or Arlooktoo, at any rate, my question is when will this policy be available for debate in this House? Thank you.

The Minister responsible for resource, Economic Development. Mr. Kakfwi.

Oral questions -- supplementary. Mr. O'Brien.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the interim manufacturing policy, or the proposed policy was somewhat separate from the BIP, and my further question was, can the Minister inform this House as to whether this policy takes into account regional as opposed to Territorial manufacturers? Thank you.

Mr. Kakfwi.

The question is taken as notice. Oral questions, Oral questions. Written questions, written questions, returns to written questions. Replies to opening address. Petitions. We will take a 15 minute break.

--- SHORT RECESS

The House will come back to order. We were on Item 11, reports of standing and special committees. Mr. Enuaraq.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Social Programs report on 1996/97, mid-year review. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide the report of the Standing Committee on Social Programs Review of 1996/97, mid-year activity reports. Overall, at this time, the Committee on Social Programs was pleased with the mid-year activity status reports provided by the Social Envelope partners with many initiatives under way in the Social Program Departments; Community Wellness, Community Justice, Income Reform, and the Government-wide Community Empowerment Initiative. The Standing Committee is concerned about Departments working together. Members see a need for a common approach when dealing with the communities. The Committee does not view these initiatives as separate entities which can be planned and implemented in isolation. They are inter-connected. There has been a high degree of co-ordination and integration between these initiatives, at the Territorial, Regional, and community levels. While each Department is working on its own initiatives, Members are still looking for more integration and co-operation between the Departments. In all initiatives, the Committee is looking for frameworks which are fair and practical. Members are looking for concrete proposals and implementation ideas. With limited funding and tremendous pressure on our social programs, Members echo the concerns voiced by the Auditor General recently. We can spend the dollars, but we do not have necessary, know if the funding is

doing what it was meant to do. We need to be clear about what we are trying to achieve before we can determine if we achieved the results we want. During the initial review of business plans, the Committee supported a number of reductions program areas. Members were disappointed to discover over the summer and during the mid-year review that these reductions were implemented without the level of consultation and concentration of creative options the Committee assumed would take place. For example, the Committee approved, in principle, reductions to foster care payments for special needs, and the Fossil Fuel Subsidies. However, the actual reductions were done without the consultation in developing options that the Committee expected. As a result, in some cases, the Departments are not reviewing and revising the way the program is structured.

In the next round of business plans, the Committee will be looking more closely at proposed reductions, to determine whether appropriate consultation is planned, and whether the full range of implementations has been considered. The Committee has a strong concern about subsidies. The Government provides subsidies in many program areas. There does not seem to be a consultation of those subsidies or any detailed co-operative knowledge of how these subsidies interact. Members are aware that the Department of Education, Culture, and Employment was the lead agency in developing a list of all Government subsidies at one point. This type of information would be very valuable when reviewing programs and ensuring consistency in approach between Departments. The Committee strongly suggested the Social Envelope partners prepare comprehensive lists of subsidies available, at least within the Envelope, to assist the integration of programs.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes my remarks on the Standing Committee on Social Programs report on 1996/97 mid-year activity review. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Enuaraq.

(Translation) Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Thebacha that the Report of the Standing Committee on Social Programs on the 1996/97 Mid-Year Activity Review be reviewed by the Legislative Assembly, and moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration.

Thank you. Just a correction, not "reviewed", it should be "received" by the Legislative Assembly, and moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. Those in favour. All those opposed. Motion is carried. Reports of Special and Standing Committees. Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. O'Brien.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Resource Management Development is generally pleased with the Mid-Year Activity Report submitted by the departments in this envelope: Transportation, Safety and Public Services, Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development. Members noted that projects seemed to be moving on at a reasonable pace, and that initiatives or strategies undertaken by the departments are being carried out for the most part, in a timely fashion.

Members have noted, however, that strategies and initiatives are being implemented prior to the Committee having a chance to review them. For example, dismantling of the Department of Safety and Public Works was not introduced to the Committee prior to the implementation of this initiative. Information on the dismantling was first provided to the Standing Committee during the Mid-Term Review, well after the strategy had been implemented. Members noted, Mr. Speaker, that this was contrary to the committee process, and counter to open government. Members would therefore like reassurances from the government that the committee process will not be circumvented in the future.

In addition, Members recommended that the government consult with the Standing Committee on Strategies and Initiatives before asking from input from ordinary Members. Mr. Speaker, that concludes my remarks on the Standing Committee of Resource Management and Development Report on the 1996/97 Mid-Year Activity Review.

Thank you Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member from Mackenzie Delta, that the Report of the Standing Committee on Resource Management and Development of the 1996/97 Mid-Year Activity Review be received by the Legislative Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. O'Brien. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour. All those opposed. Motion is carried. Reports of Standing and Special Committees. Mr. Picco.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is the Report of the 1996/97 Mid-Year Review for the Standing Committee on Infrastructure. As the Committee noted in its review of the 96/97 Main Estimates, the business plans of the departments in this envelope share a recurring theme of devolution. While the community empowerment initiative is the most notable undertaking in this area, devolution also encompasses the privatization of services, formerly provided by government departments, and developing user-pay systems for services still provided by government.

Generally speaking, Committee Members agree with this focus for the departments in the infrastructure envelope, and applaud the principle as well as many of the measures taken to date. However, specific concerns regarding the implementation of some of these measures were raised during the review of the business plans and budgets earlier this year. These concerns were repeated during this mid-year review. The committee believes that the devolution of services from the government to community should not take place merely for the sake of devolution itself. Transfer of powers and responsibilities should only take place where such a transfer will generally benefit those receiving the service. This will only happen when adequate preparations have taken place. Committee Members are concerned that communities are not yet ready for the profound transfers of responsibility that are planned and underway. The decisions and initiatives introduced by the government must not be arbitrary, or seen to be arbitrary. Every decision and initiative must have a sound rationale behind its introduction, with a visible implementation plan in place, and it is the government's responsibility to provide and explain those rationales to the House and to the citizens of the Northwest Territories. Much of the discussion to date has treated Community Empowerment as a motherhood issue. None of the community members will disagree that generally speaking, decision making is most effective when the decision-makers and the service providers are on the same level. However, there is more to community empowerment than mere decision making. While the principle of community empowerment is certainly worthy of open discussion, it is even more critical that the details of the government's implementation of community empowerment be subject to the open debate by the elected members of the Legislative Assembly. Committee members are concerned that the full assembly has not yet had the opportunity to engage in a full public debate and a community empowerment initiative, except for this afternoon. The Committee recommends that the government phrase, implementation of initiatives, related to community empowerment until such time as this debate this afternoon, in the public forum. Mr. Speaker, this concludes my introductory comments and our committee's report.

Thank you, Mr. Picco.

Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that the report of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure on the 1996/97 mid-year review be received by the Assembly and moved into the committee of the whole for consideration.

Thank you. That would be the Legislative Assembly. The motion is in order. To the motion. Questions being called. All those in favour. All those opposed. The motion is carried. Report of standing and special committees, Mr. Henry.