Yes, I wonder if Mr. O'Brien could clarify for me what is the intent of this recommendation? The way I read it is that if a Crown corporation failed to file its annual report in a timely fashion they would not receive funding from the G.N.W.T. Is that correct?

Thank you. Mr. O'Brien.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, judging from what is on the paper here that is the intent of the motion.

Thank you. Minister of Finance, Mr. Todd.

Okay. If so, Mr. Chairman, then could my honourable colleague please explain to me what could happen in the case of the N.W.T. Development Corporation or Arctic College if they could not, for no matter how legitimate a reason, file an annual report on time. Would the government withdraw its financial support? Issue lay-off notices to hundreds of people who are employed by the subsidiaries of Arctic College? Is that the intent of this motion?

Thank you. Mr O'Brien.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

Is that the intent of this motion? We are talking Housing Corporation, Arctic College, N.W.T. Development Corporation, etc. I mean, I need to get some clarification here in terms of what the intent of this motion is. I would like to ask Mr. O'Brien since he brought the motion forward. Thank you.

... (Inaudible) ... Thank you. Mr. Picco or Mr. O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Picco. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

It does not say that. It says Crown Corporations and other entities of the government. And it clearly says that it "have their budgets withheld". Is that what this Committee and these Members want us to do? To withhold money should the report, some report, not come forward on an annual basis in a timely manner? My point is here is that this is not workable. That is the point I am trying to make here. I understand the intent as Mr. Miltenberger explained and I appreciate that, but that is not what the motion says.

Thank you. To the principle of the motion. I have Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman Mike's response to the intent of the motion is correct. But I think, Mr. Todd, that the situation here is that over the past "x" number of days in the Annual Financial Administration Act, we did note that 280 days, 180 days was elapsing, and these annual reports were not being submitted. Maybe this would prod them into doing, getting their annual reports out on time.

I think that Mr. Todd and the rest of the Assembly realizes that in certain instances, because the Corporation Head Office burned down or something, and you could not get your annual report done, I am sure we could make an exception. I do not think that takes away from the intent of the recommendation. I think the Honourable Minister is baiting a red herring there.

Thank you. I have Mr. Erasmus, Mrs. Groenewegen to the principle of the motion. Mr. Erasmus.

Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Todd wanted to respond.

Thank you for your understanding. Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Erasmus. I appreciate that. The point I am trying to make is, first of all it is not a red herring. If we are going to have a professional debate here on an important issue of this nature then that is how we should deal with it. I am saying to you this motion clearly says if I was going to accept - I would like to think that we would try to accept as many recommendations as we can from the honourable Members - that means I effectively have to withdraw the funds. So there may be a requirement from the further modification to this motion to give the kind of flexibility that has been said by Mr. Miltenberger and others. That is all. You do not let the government run. If not effectively, it means...have their budgets withheld until such time as the requirements of the Act are met. It is not unusual for an agency to seek from the Finance Minister some dispensation for additional days because he does not have his report together. Some Members of this committee are fully aware of that. That is the only point I want to make for public record. If I could get some response to that, I would appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Mr. Erasmus, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Ootes and Mr. Picco. Mr. Picco, would you like to respond to the Minister? Mr. Picco.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, any motion that comes forward in this House, I know the Members, including myself, take it seriously. The dispensation that Mr. Todd talks about is correct. Maybe Mr. Todd would like to give us an idea of what modification he envisions. I think the intent of the recommendation is fine because I note, when we did the public review from the public auditor's report from the public accounts, that indeed in four instances, I think, the different Crown Corporations and public offices of the Northwest Territories Government did not even request an extension of time after the 280 day period. I think the point of the recommendation was to bring that forward. As Mr. Miltenberger rightfully said, trying to put in place something to control the tardiness of the reporting structure that is actually in place at the present time.

Thank you. Mr. Erasmus, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Erasmus.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As has been indicated, some of these corporations had not submitted their reports for a great length of time after the time that had been indicated. It seems to me it is pretty simple to write a report. On the other hand, maybe the Minister is indicating that those guys are not competent enough to write the reports at the same time as running their organizations. Maybe they should start writing the reports a little bit sooner instead of waiting for the cut-off date and then starting to write their report because that is what seems to be happening. Thank you.

Thank you. I have Madam Groenewegen.