Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to conclude my comments as quickly as possible so we can get on with the line by line and opening comments for the Premier and the Executive.

Let me deal with Mr. Steen first of all, if I may. His opening quote was the budget reductions are necessary. We all agree with that. There is no question that somebody had to do something. We chose to do something. In a perfect world, you die and go to heaven. The reality is this is not a perfect world and we are not going to satisfy all of the people all of the time but we are going to satisfy some of the people some of the time. Fundamentally, I believe that what we did, and I said this yesterday, but I will try to keep it as short as I can. We tried to redistribute as best we can to those who have the least from those who have the most. Some of the Members here have spoken out against that. I will address that in a moment.

Mr. Steen's concern with respect to the new model of government, the implication that we are going to design the new model of government is incorrect. What in fact we are doing is looking at the Nunavut Footprints in the Snow 2 model. We have an obligation to seek the federal government and NTI's response. We have an obligation to reach some consensus because that is the criteria that was set for this commission and for our participation, to reach some consensus on what kind of model is, one efficient, two affordable. So I would not like to give anybody any impression that we are going spend an inordinate amount of time to develop new models. We are going to take what is out there, listen to the comments that come forward by the two other ligated, legal parties to the process, and try to put together what I call a pre-implementation division plan. There is no intent of the government or this ministry to impose any government on anybody. But there clearly is a requirement to develop some pre-implementation, so therefore we can sit at the table and determine how we are going to proceed with the costing, and the negotiations that are necessary with the federal government, to see if they are prepared to pay the cost.

In simple language, Mr. Chairman, that is where it is at. There is no intent, let me repeat, to develop a new model. It is our intent to build on what is there, what it efficient, affordable and to move forward with our partners in trying to put a pre-implementation strategy in place.

On the job creation component that you talked about, I agree that there is not a great deal of new initiatives in this budget that cost money, because there is no money. I mean, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. I sit around this table and listen to some of you dissing yourself on this budget because now it is publicly convenient and yet you know damn well, pardon my language, that part of our problem is the $40 million growth in the social envelope. There are no large sums of money for new initiatives. But there is a will and a determination on the part of the Premier and the Cabinet to try to move forward in the federal government on some job strategies, particularly in this potential highway infrastructure fund that we hear is being talked about in Ottawa.

There is no large pot of money out there to create a whole bunch of new initiatives. I am just trying to sustain the system. As I said yesterday, so that the essentials that our constituency needs, health care, education, a decent job if we can create it, are there. There is no luxury on the fiscal side. If I sound a little aggressive on that, I am. There is no easy answer to job creation. Job creation, I said last year in the budget and I said this year in the budget, has to be in partnership with the private sector. We can no longer be the engine of the economy. It just simply is not there because sufficient dollars are just not there.

So, we need to develop a strategy aggressively that is going to create some job opportunities and some economic well being for our people in conjunction with the federal government and to some extent the partnership concept that we have with respect to the private sector. I believe that we will be able to move quickly on that and I am optimistic that in conjunction with the committees and discussion with the Ordinary Members that within the next 90 days to 120 days we will have a strategy in place and hopefully we will have been able to identify the sources of funding that are required.

On the other two questions, with respect to Mr. Steen's concerns on the million dollars, that is the supplementary appropriation. It will be identified. It is for discussions in the self-government. So it will be there. In this budget it is in the supplementary.

On his comments, with respect to Mr. Martin's process for funding the two new governments, I do not have the formula. What I have, is assurance from Mr. Martin that there will be a broad base representation at the table to develop two new formula agreements east and west. I think I said in the budget address and I will repeat it for clarity purposes. In the eastern Arctic, it will be the Nunavut Tungavik Incorporated, the interim commissioner. In the western Arctic, it will be the Government of the Northwest Territories and provision has been made for representation of western interest who will be selected through the consortium of interests that are developing the western constitutional process. I think that what we have there, is a fairly broad-based security blanket, if you want for both parties that one is not doing what the other one does not know and we will all pull together on our pilgrimage to Ottawa to determine appropriate funding formulas and the level of funding of formulas that is necessary. The fundamental issue in the financing of the two new territories, is my belief as a Finance Minister, is in the incremental side and you cannot determine, and I will defy anybody in this House to show me how you can determine what the incremental costs are until you determine what the basic new core infrastructure of government is going to be, east and west. And that is what we are trying to move forward on and the Premier has drafted a letter, I believe to Mr. Irwin, and has spoken to others about the need to reach quickly a consensus of what kind of government we are going to have east and west so we can set the dollars to it.

Mr. Henry, I appreciate the fact that his opening comments, and I appreciate his comments on the surplus as that in a sense we have to be careful on the term surplus. It is a projected surplus. It is a small $9 million. If we reach it, it is based on our ability to meet the targets we met and is based upon ensuring that there is no major catastrophe out there. Nobody can predict the future. So I appreciate the support and the caution as it relates to the term surplus. Perhaps I should have used another term. I know it would be fair to say we have not moved as quickly as we should on the northern job strategy and I apologize for the fact that we have not tabled in this House the affirmative action policy. They are clearly inter-related and I make a commitment today as the Premier did earlier, that we will bring forward both of these initiatives with the hope of some healthy debate and some direction to be given, so we can move much more aggressively on trying to accomplish both these things. One a job strategy and two greater participation by aboriginal northerners in the civil service and outside of it. Job strategy cannot be just left to the government. We simply can no longer be, as I said to the point of boredom, the engine of the economy.

I also agree with the cuts in capital spending and I said it in the budget. For one thing, a cut in the capital spending is a one term deal. It does not make fundamental change to the way in which government is done and the way in which government is costed. So I agree with Mr. Henry, Mr. Ootes and others who have said we cannot continue to cut the capital spending, and it is our intention to listen to that advice. I have some concern that a debate raised by some, Mr. Steen raised it and Mr. Henry has raised it and some others, with respect to looking at the social envelope in isolation. The root causes associated with the increase in the social envelope. Burgeoning population as we have said, overcrowding in our houses, outside of these affluent centres, Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, Yellowknife, Hay River, Fort Smith. Burgeoning populations, burgeoning populations. And we need to deal with the root causes of that. We have not, and I challenge you again, have not dealt with that in this House for that last 15 months, in public debate. We have all talked about it privately, but we have not and I have spoke many times to many Members about this issue. I think it is an important one, and I am glad it is come to light and is coming to light and people want to discuss it now.

But you cannot say that you cannot look at the social envelope increases in isolation on some of these more difficult complicated issues out there and one of we way is population explosion and the impact it has on it. It is also important to say we have not put significant dollars back into social envelope. What we have tried to do is give them the minimum to sustain the system. To get the essentials out there, whether it is in housing, whether it is, as my friend Mr. Erasmus says, in education or for that matter, the difficult task that the Minister of Health is going to have when he has to address some of the choices he has had to make to meet the targets that are set before him.

Mr. Henry also made some comment about, I think the reference was something on the budget, your inability.....