Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr Steen.

Mr. Ng.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be receptive to debating the issues and merits of developing some form of policy, as I indicated. You know, it is a complex issue in respect to some of the programs and services. It is complex when you try to balance out community empowerment and delivery of services through the

Department of Health and Social Services, if you were to go too far one way or the other. It is certainly something, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I would certainly be willing to debate or to discuss with all Members of this House at any given time. Thank you.

Thank you. Oral questions. Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I can have a little preamble, Mr. Speaker, on today's budget. I think the Finance Minister has been very creative in providing something for all peoples in the territories and all segments in the economy. I also believe he has balanced out and been up front on some of the negative things, and I will speak to more about this later. There are a couple that I would like to question the Minister on presently. He had noted in his remarks earlier on regarding concerns he had as to pay equity and I certainly share his concerns. We have asked the public in the territories to tighten their belt for the last two years. How much of an impact does the Minister think that this pay equity issue will have on the future abilities of the government to work? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. The Minister may respond, if he wishes. Mr. Todd.

Well, it is difficult to sort of quantify the overall impact of pay equity on the fiscal framework of the government. I did say in the speech, and I will say again, that we want to genuinely negotiate an arrangement. This Finance Minister, if I can take some credit, has decided to put it on the table. I challenge the parties to come to the table and try to reach an accommodation that will satisfy the staff and those members of the opposite gender, try to satisfy them, that we come to some arrangement where there is an affordable settlement. I mean, there are all kinds of numbers that have been thrown out there, and I really do not want to add to or inflame an already difficult negotiation. I just hope that the organized labour, the UNW, recognizes that I am serious in my desire to negotiate a deal and understand, and I am sure they do, the fiscal realities that we are still facing even though we have balanced the budget. I hope, and I am optimistic that we can come to an arrangement by the end of March, and as it gets closer to what we think may be an appropriate settlement, and I am not trying to avoid the issue, then I would be prepared then to say this is how I think it will impact on our both short and long term fiscal condition. But I could tell you that if it is not affordable and I said it clearly, I do not want anybody to be under any other illusion, there is no ability right now to pay any large settlement on pay equity. Simply none. If there was, it might be different, but there is not. It will mean job loss and it will mean program reductions. I am not prepared to move forward on that. Thank you.

Thank you. Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Minister for that explanation. The Minister has identified that they are presently in negotiations which he anticipates should be wrapped up by the end of March. I would also anticipate that the following year's budget should be approved before those negotiations are complete. Does the Minister have any secondary plan in place for negative results coming out of these negotiations? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Todd.

Well, if my honourable colleague asked me if there was a contingency plan, I think I was pretty clear. If the settlement is not affordable, if it is imposed upon us and not negotiated, then my preference is to negotiate. I have said that consistently. Again, I stress, I called the parties to the table. This is a ten year dispute. This government and my colleagues in this government want to settle this issue. The only contingency factor that is not affordable is we look from within, and I do not think there is the political will to do that right now. I hope all parties will come to the table recognizing that and that there is a sincere gesture on the Cabinet's part or on my part, as the Minister responsible, to make a negotiated settlement that is affordable. Thank you.

Oral questions. Mr. Miltenberger.

Minister of Finance, Mr. Todd.

How I appreciate my honourable colleague in the great debate, asking me that important question. I would like to acknowledge here, now, that the P3 actually came about partially because of my honourable colleague from Fort Smith's discussions with me many, many months ago, so maybe we should just give him a brief round of applause.

--Applause

Of course, I would like to say that publicly while I am here. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my intent, or our intent, to develop policies and direction on the P3 that ensure that two key things came out of the discussions we had with some of the advocacy groups out there. There is a clear concern, as Mr. Picco frequently talks about, and rightly so, of transparency. The need for transparency. The need for people to see where it is going, why it is going there, et cetera. We need to address that, and we are working hard to address that. Perhaps, the more important one that came up time and time again, whether it was in discussions with the NWT Construction Association, the NWT Chamber of Commerce or other groups, was the affordability issue. I am very much aware of that, and we are working very hard right now to put the policies and the regulations in place that are going to do that. I could, for my colleague's benefit, perhaps table tomorrow the P3 policy and some of the regulations that Mr. Coles, who was the consultant on the issue, has given us as long as he understands that we were still making adjustments to them. It is certainly our intent to do exactly as my honourable colleague has suggested. Thank you.

Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Miltenberger.

Mr. Todd.

The principles of P3 are somewhat similar but the $40 to 50 million that is being suggested are additional dollars that we feel is an affordable issue. We need to get some houses on the deck, as they say, and we will have to go out and borrow this money and demonstrate that we have the capability to repay it and that is what we are intending to do. It is over and above the projection that we were talking about. Thank you.

Thank you. Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Miltenberger.

Mr. Todd.