Thank you. There were several questions from Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Todd's turn will come after Mr. Picco. I have Mr. Picco. I have Mr. Picco, Mr. Todd, and Mr. Steen. Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, over the past couple of weeks we have had chances in the committees, as MLAs, to review the adjustments to the 1996-97 Capital Budget. It has caused some areas of concern. The money and slippage if a project has been deferred or cancelled, or a deferred or cancelled project. My understanding would be that that money would go back into our deficit reduction strategy. It is very hard, and it is not palatable for me to be able to sit here and talk about cuts and reductions, and senior citizens subsidy cuts, when I see a million dollars being re-directed to a rec centre, when, for example, in my case, mine was cut last year. That is unacceptable.

Our basic concerns should be for the primary facilities of the Northwest Territories and those infrastructures that keep health, mind, soul and body together. I do not think a rec centre fits into that category. The whole idea of this concept was we had an open government, an open policy in the last eleven months. The door came down between the Cabinet and the Executive. And with the new committee structure, the ordinary MLAs would have a better opportunity to have a say and input into the decision-making process. As Mr. Krutko and Mr. Miltenberger have articulated earlier, this new process seems to be somewhat lacking at the present time. I, too, will be asking some questions to the appropriate Ministers on why, if and when, this has happened, and is it going to happen again in the future. Because if it is, then the S.S. Titanic is going down and we are re-arranging deck chairs. It is not acceptable. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. On behalf of the Cabinet, we have Mr. Todd. Mr. Steen, sorry.

Thank you. We have Mr. Barnabas.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I heard about this, as well, I did not hear directly from the Minister, but I heard from another staff member what, especially for the $633,000 that was taken out from Resolute Bay airport.

I feel that since we already approved the budget, and we all got together and worked on it together, and we all believed that this was going to happen. I know that this has been delayed, but I feel that since we do have a deficit, and we all know that we have to work to get rid of the deficit, but I was quite concerned about this. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Barnabas. Mr. Erasmus. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, have similar concerns. I understand that Ministers have to be allowed to manage the departments. I also know that we are trying to balance the budget, and the Finance Minister has asked the Ministers to see where they can trim more dollars from their budgets. But at the same time, we did spend a long time last session working out the capital budget. I think that simple courtesy at least should dictate that when capital items are deferred or totally deleted, they should be done with input from the affected MLA, and the communities.

At the same time, I think that if a community changes its priorities, then perhaps that community, along with its MLA should be able to talk to the Minister involved, and see if perhaps, the money should be able to be spent on another project. If the community feels that it is a greater priority than what is being proposed, but that should be available to everybody. If we agreed to do that type of thing, we also have to agree that we are not going to be indicating that some things are for safety, or for some other prime concern, and then all of a sudden, once you get to money allocated, then, change your mind.

One of the things I think that is not clear, is how the Ministers arrive at how these capital items are awarded to the various communities. Do each of the Ministers do their capital budgets in total isolation? Do they just say, there is this many communities, and 15 of them have community halls, and these ones do not, so we will give the community halls over here? Or do they look at the primary building facilities? If every Minister has their own budget and they allocate it the way they want, then some communities might not even have a health centre, but yet they might be awarded a community hall, or an arena. Those are the things I think we have to look at.

I know other Members have already brought it up that we entered this process trying to be as co-operative as possible but capital plans are changed. Thank you.

Thank you, general comment. Mr. Evaloarjuk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, I would just like to say that right now I do not really have any concerns within my communities but I do feel that the other MLAs do have concerns on the issues that we are talking about. Maybe, I am wrong but I feel that I know that like these capital should be approved by all of the MLAs because we go through them all maybe somebody will explain to me, do we have authority as members of the Legislative

Assembly especially for the, like the mayors do have authority within the west, like the mayor was able to ask for some funding, for example, maybe the money was taken from Barnabas' community and went to another town or community. I feel the people from the High Arctic should have been proud of their decision making in that part.

For example, for the transportation, for airports, the airports are under the territorial government as I understood, but know I have heard that they are under the federal government. Maybe I do not understand this correctly but I feel this is what I wanted to say. Thank you.

General comment, Mr. Ootes.

Thank you. General comments, we are considering changes to the capital plan of this government. Mr. Enuaraq.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have some comments to make in regards to this issue on capital expenditures. I did not actually understand some of the, may be this is because of my misunderstanding, what has transpired this summer. I have travelled throughout my constituency as well as outside of Canada. Maybe, because of the fact that I was travelling, that is why I was not aware of what had transpired, in Pangnirtung and also in Broughton Island.

I always try to visit them whenever possible and when I went to Broughton Island I was told by the Hamlet Manager in Broughton Island, the airport at Broughton Island had been postponed, the airport that was going to be made. Being MLA for that region, when I went to visit them that was the only time I was told what had transpired and what had been planned for the coming summer. For people who we represent, we have to represent them in this House and I do believe when we have our constituents to represent and have to live by the rules of the law in thinking of everything that has transpired in the Northwest Territories, what my colleague, Mr. Ootes had stated earlier, I believe that he had stated when we are going to be some of the capital expenditures are going to be taken out then maybe the Minister should consult with us as MLAs as well as the hamlet and some of the bodies that are responsible for the maintenance for the communities.

If the other people in any of the other communities do require this particular capital expenditure that is going to be taken away from our constituency then we should be consulted. There are more important issues as well in the Northwest Territories, even if it is a small community, even if the population is not as great, they will be treated equally and fairly. That is what we were told last year and that is what I believe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Now ordinary members, on the process and directive of the government perhaps it is the appropriate time to ask if any of the Ministers, members of the Cabinet, would like to attempt to answer some of the questions. Mr. Todd.

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.

Thank you. On the list we have Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. Picco and Mr. Krutko. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

There is a planning process in place for the capital expenditures that includes the communities. It includes the Ministers. If the Ministers make adjustments after the planning process, it has to have the approval of the FMB which includes ourselves. If there were any specific questions about a specific department, I think it would be better to address that directly to a Minister. The issue of flexibility on the Ministers part, yes, but it has to have FMB approval.

Thank you. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.