You can if you want? Since no one had any general comments, I will make some comments with regard to the document that the Premier presented yesterday. In general, I guess I am certainly in favour of most of the areas. There are some areas that I feel I have some objections to.
I would like to make a comment about the statement that the deficit will be eliminated over two years. I have a concern in that area. First of all, we are looking at a $150 million deficit. We are also looking at eliminating that over a two-year period. What happens if we have further cutbacks from the federal government? From what I understand, that may be a likelihood. That means we have a further deficit in the upcoming year. That could really put us in a difficult situation. It might mean even if we plan this over two years, we will have three years in order to eliminate the deficit. We have to remember that our term really is only three years. I really don't want to go into two new territories with a deficit.
There was a comment made that we can no longer afford to be spending nearly half of every dollar for administration costs. I would like to clarify that because the percentage of spending by the GNWT administration is only 17 per cent of the budget, but 20 per cent is spent on boards and agencies.
I am very glad to hear that the Premier is looking at tackling this particular problem of the boards and agencies. They spend more than the administration of this government. My attitude would be let's immediately start tackling that and I would hope that that is being tackled from today on. The longer we talk about this, the more that is being spent. These are areas that can be tackled quickly.
With respect to the amalgamation of Renewable Resources, Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and ED&T, I am certainly one that is in favour of that. I think it will become a more efficient administration. But I would also like to know if the Executive has considered developing an economic revenue-generating plan. All we are doing is looking at amalgamating, reducing and so forth. This particular department will be the only one in the government that is a revenue generator. It is extremely important for us to tackle that area and to have some foresight.
I can't remember the figures those departments generate now, but I am sure that can be improved. For instance, there is a good program in Coral Harbour for caribou hunting. I understand that more of that product can be sold. Muskox can potentially be sold. The forestry area is a great economic generator. That is an area that can be developed.
Regarding the transfer of occupational health and safety from the Department of Safety and Public Services to the Workers' Compensation Board, at the moment I have a lot of questions in that area because I wonder what the philosophy behind this is. My concern is that this is transferred to the Workers' Compensation Board, but the Workers' Compensation Board is driven by industry and employers. They pay the bill. If occupational health and safety is transferred there, could we possibly have pressure placed on the Workers' Compensation Board by the employers to say we don't want to pay this much for health and safety; therefore, we are going to lobby to reduce the inspections, et cetera? That is an area of concern I have. Again, I would like to hear some comments about the philosophy behind the transfer.
I certainly agree with the Premier's statement that we can no longer afford expensive procedures and delivery systems. Too many government departments, too many committees and too many boards and agencies, but I would like to refer later on where the Premier states: "I intend to move quickly to establish a panel of independent advisors on the economy and employment and on how to improve the business climate to attract jobs, investment and capital to the Northwest Territories." In other words, we have too many boards and agencies and now we are going to establish another panel of independent advisors to advise us how to handle and look at the economy and employment. I have some concerns in this area, one is we all have our network of people who we want to be consultants and so forth.
I would hope that, if this comes about, there would be a very good cross-representation of individuals.
There are some extremely good business people in this territory. I don't believe we need anyone from the South, number one, to help us consult on how we generate revenue up here. We know that ourselves. This is the first time I have seen this.
Another area I am concerned about is in this Legislature we have a number of people who are former business people and I am wondering if it wouldn't be advisable to have a committee of people from this Legislature to have a first crack at this and to pass back some comments to the Premier and Minister before we get into establishing committees and so forth. I don't see any reason also why the Premier and the Minister can't call on the people they know for ideas and so forth and feed them into a group of people here for consultation.
The Premier spoke about having met with the aboriginal summit and the development of protocol agreements. I am wondering if the Premier could explain how this works. Since there is a Constitutional Development Steering Committee, how does this tie in with that committee? We all are Members of the Constitutional Development Steering Committee. I am wondering if that protocol will be something he will seek consultation from us on, as well as from the Constitutional Development Steering Committee.
The northern accord is an area that is certainly of great interest to me. I think we all see the need for developing that. Could I get an explanation of why the northern accord didn't succeed the last time? What are the reasons for the failure? Why do we think we can accomplish a northern accord now, especially considering the possibility of some mines going ahead? That possibility is extremely good. I lost my train of thought, I am sorry. I'll let someone else carry on from here. Thank you.
---Applause