Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important to try to put the debate into some perspective and to deal historically with where we were and where we are at. I think you know, the reality is that somebody alluded to should we do schools versus arenas or arenas or something else. The reality is up until last year, that this Legislature since 1968 had the capacity to meet most, if not all of the needs of the constituents.

Similarly the growing needs of it. Whether it was in schools, whether it was in arenas, whether it was in infrastructure required in these communities.

But as I have said many times, the rules of engagement change dramatically with the fact that our former financing agreement was reduced close to sixty million dollars and there was some additional reductions because the way in which our revenues were calculated with the Conference Board of Canada.

So it would be fair to say that while we all enjoyed the luxury over the last twenty, twenty-five years, we have been able to get, I would think pretty well everything we wanted, that simply is not the case in 1996/97. I think it is also important to point out that we managed together an agreement, we reached an agreement, where we determined our deficit elimination strategy would include some capital, and if my memory serves me correct I think it something in the region of about thirty million dollars. Mr. Steen alluded to that earlier I believe.

Now, historically the capital budget has been somewhere in the region of about a hundred and eighty, a hundred and eighty five million dollars, somewhere in there. I believe it is now down to about a hundred and forty five million because of changes that we have had to make, I repeat, had to make, because of the reduction in our form of finance.

I do not think there is any doubt, in the last debate, that there is a requirement, particularly right now, to priorize and I remember Mr. Krutko talking about the need for a priority in his water and sewer and I do not think anybody is disputing that, you know, nobody is disputing that. In these difficult times when you cannot accommodate everybody's concerns you have to take a look at where we are going to spend our money and the reasons for doing it and what the priorities are.

I am a bit concerned where the discussion is going because I think it is somewhat too general. To make a comment that the whole capital budget is in a state of disarray, that seems to be implied, and I will have to check Hansard tomorrow, is absolutely inaccurate, first of all.

I think it is incumbent upon you, as members, to address the individual issues that you have to Ministers and ask them why they did what they did, but you cannot make a general statement saying that we are in complete disarray. It is just nonsense.

If Mr. O'Brien has a concern about his nursing station in Arviat versus it going to Gjoa Haven, he should address that question in the House with the Minster responsible. I am sure the Minister made that decision. I cannot speak for him based on illogical argument. That debate should take place. If there is some concern about the Transportation budget, then debate that with the Minister. That is not a problem.

That is what politics is all about. But I think we need to be a little more specific here around these generalizations that I think have been made up. We will have to double check Hansard.

You simply cannot, and I do appreciate Mr. Steen's comment, tie the hands of this government. You cannot tie my hands as the Minister of Finance if you want me to balance the budget. It is like saying every time we make a change we have to check with everybody. In my ??? eyes, that is impossible. I would freely admit that perhaps the communications at the community level with respect to the changing of capital budgets was faulty. I think I would admit that. We take -- I certainly take, as Minister of Finance -- some responsibility for that.

I think clearly, there is a need, if we are going to discuss this issue, when you could debate with respect to specifics, if there is a specific area. If there is some concern out there that there is a sense of unfairness, that the priorities are perhaps not as clear as they should be, then that should be articulated. I want to tell you, and I knew this debate was coming forward, so I took some time to evaluate where the capital monies have been spent over the last 10 years, not over the last two, but over the last 10 years. I am prepared to share that with you at the right time. I think you would be surprised about the discussion of unfairness. I am not going to sit here and debate today whether one constituency got more than the other. I will prove it to you over a ten year period where the money was spent and why it was spent, and I think you will see -- I hope you will see -- where the differences are and the reasons for them. I think that is another important point to look at. You cannot look at a one-year budget and say, "Is this being fair or unfair?" You have to look at what has happened over a period of time because, contrary to popular opinion, previous governments and this government does have a plan.

I think the five-year plans that were in place in previous governments and the five-year plan that is in place in this government were done for a reason and were debated in the House, et cetera, and can continue to be so. But the important issue here is that the rules of engaging is changed, that there is less money. Being less money it means we are not able to do the kinds of things that we must do. Ministers have to have some flexibility in being able to manage their budgets and manage the projects that they are responsible for. I think it would be fair to say that we

-- we collectively -- if there was a collective role where you disagree with what we are saying, then we have to debate that in the House. You have to provide the management team -- well, it is the bureaucratic level, more like the political level to manage what is going on.

I have heard no discussion, for example, on all the other department. If there is a specific discussion about a specific nursing station, for example, Mr. O'Brien who has talked impassionately about it, then let us debate that. If there is a specific issue and concern about highways or switching of monies, then let us debate that. But you cannot, as we move forward in our second last budget, in my opinion anyway, say that the whole system just simply is not working. That just certainly is not true, in my opinion anyway, as the Minister responsible and trying to finance the money.

The fiscal reality is that there is less money. There is less money in capital, the same as there is less money in O and M. We are all going to have to live with the fact that there is less money there. So if it is a question of prioritizing, and we need some advice direction on that, we are prepared to listen to that. If it is a question of unfairness, be specific. Let us respond to it through debate. If it is a question of where we move from here, we will look for some recommendations and some direction by yourselves. There is a budgetary process in place. While it may not be perfect, and I stress that, it is better than it ever was before and if it requires some modification and some change so you feel a little more comfortable with it, I, as Minister of Finance, am prepared to consider any recommendations you bring forward. Thank you.