Thank you. Mr. Todd.

If my honourable colleague is relating to the fact that we may move forward with the changes in the Financial Administration Act and the fact that we are moving forward with some public/private partnership in capital spending, how is that going to impact overall on the fiscal framework of the government? We would have to do it in a manner that met the fiscal targets that we set over the next two years. Certainly for any of us including my colleagues across the floor, we have to work hard to make sure that when we leave office, we leave the books in good order for not only the next generation but for future generations. Any spending has to be done in the context of the overall fiscal framework in the government and the Deficit Elimination Act, and the commitments we have to it. I hope that answers the question.

Thank you, Mr. Todd. On the list I have Mr. Krutko and Mr. Rabesca. Before I recognize Mr. Krutko, I would like to update the Members on the progress of the review in terms of time. We are taking over two hours per Minister to review. We still have five Ministers that is about 12 hours in total that we still have to review the other Ministers. So I think that we should try to move on a bit faster than we are currently moving. I have Mr. Krutko.

I know that my colleague has spoken in this House on a number of occasions that he has felt his riding in particular has not benefited as much as to say as some others. I think in fairness there may be some legitimacy to that, I do not know. The process that we have I think as I have said earlier at an earlier question while not perfect is certainly better than it was before, whereby the Premier writes to the communities and asks the communities along with MLAs for input as to what project they would like to see, what the priorities are that you place on them, one to five, one to ten, whatever you want. I would hope that the MLA was intimately involved in that process. I allocate budgets based on some formulas whether it is the social envelope or the resource envelope. The Ministers to their credit work to those budgets because we have got to meet the overall budget of this government. Capital dollars are allocated the same way. The process comes in from the communities into committee which my honourable colleague is one of the chairs of, I believe, or deputy chairs of. They examine it. They give us some recommendations what we do, back to Cabinet. We approve it, and it goes back into the House for ultimate approval.

What I have been doing in the last two years since I have had this portfolio is trying to track the expenditures by community, trying to demonstrate on a per capita basis how much money each community gets and try to do to the best of our ability. We do not always do it well. Let us be clear. Ensure that the system is fair and equitable. It is very difficult to do that on a consistent basis when you have as little money as we have because as my honourable colleague knows some of the Ministers have had to make extremely difficult decisions that have not been popular in some of the cancellation and delaying of projects.

I would like to think that the process is fair. I certainly believe that it is transparent. I defy anybody to show me where it is not. There may be occasionally an equitable argument out there, I would not deny that. Occasionally it may proceed that way, but certainly the objective of this government is to do exactly that, fair, equitable where possible and more importantly transparent in the process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

First of all, all Cabinet Ministers including myself take the committee input and the new committee system seriously. There is a difference between setting strategic goals, setting capital spending and O and M spending and administering government. You cannot administer government by committee. You have to manage government and that is what your Cabinet Ministers do for you. The committees work with the Cabinet Ministers to set strategic goals, strategic planning and to some extent, and to a great extent, where the capital and O and M dollars are spent. Committee reports are treated seriously, but committee reports are exactly what my honourable colleague said, recommendations. Sometimes, we take the recommendations of the Cabinet and occasionally we do not. I think on average we have really moved on a number of the recommendations made by a number of the committees. I can tell you one that I am dealing with right now. I said it earlier to Mr. Erasmus on the Affirmative Action Report, for example, I believe we have agreed to 89 percent of the committee recommendations. On some of the recommendations made with respect to the strategic initiatives of this government, we have agreed with committees on a number of things. I recall a major one that to be the amalgamation of transportation and housing corporation and public works. We did not do it based on committee.

There is a genuine effort and attempt to try to incorporate as much of the committee recommendations and advice as we can. To some extent that is the definition of consensus, but it does not always occur. It would be fair to say that.

Thank you. Question number three, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

Well, I beg to differ with my colleague. It is not being abused. I think that if you look historically at the supplementary appropriations, when I took office, supplementary appropriations were running about $40/45 million a year. The Ministers with the support of the Premier have given me the mandate to indicate to them that supplementary appropriations as special warrants have to be an absolute necessity. Occasionally that happens. The supplementary appropriations last year were in the $20 million range. I would have to look and see what they are right now, but certainly they are no longer the norm. They have to be clear need and rationale for supplementary appropriations as special warrants. An example of that was, I spoke earlier, the $4 million for rebasing health care. We simply had to do it. That had to come through a supplementary appropriation. It is just the way governments do business. Sometimes you miss things in the planning process. You need some flexibility to do it. I believe there is some transparency because it comes back to committee, but you cannot tie the hands of government. If they have a problem on their hands or if there is something occurs which they have to move quickly on, that is why Cabinet and FMB have got that mandate and authority.

I have to tell you my honourable colleague that the use of special warrants and supplementary appropriations have been reduced dramatically over the last two years. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

I am not trying to antagonize my honourable colleague, but again, I have to disagree with him. I think supplementary appropriation is accepted around the room. I could tell you historically, through good fiscal and prudent management, along with the cooperation of the Premier and my colleagues, I have been able to reduce the utilization of supplementary appropriations dramatically, but it is a tool that is required of government for it to move forward quickly on some issues like, as I suggested to my colleague, an obvious one, the $4 million of rebasing of health care which we had to do because of the crisis that was before us. It is not a tool to be abused. I want to assure my honourable colleague that it is a tool to deal with unexpected and unanticipated, in most cases, expenditures. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

As my honourable colleague suggests, then we should hold off on initiatives in the Western Territory because we are creating two new territories in 1999.

Thank you. Question, Mr. Krutko.