Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, Madam Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we have lived up to our obligation, but the issue is that much of the responsibility for the delivery of these programs was devolved to health boards, along with a lot of the authority and the reporting and communications responsibilities. So the difficulty is that although we may be aware of some of the deficiencies, there is not always a clear means by which the department can require that accountability. That is why we are looking at accountability in governance structures in all those various things.

So in view of the concerns that were raised by constituents through things like the Minster's Forum on Health and Social Services and other means that we have of receiving information, it became of a magnitude and a seriousness that we felt we needed to do this system-wide review.

Having said that, I do not want to alarm the Members. We do believe that we are still meeting the spirit and intent of the responsibility that we have when the federal government transferred these responsibilities to us. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Minister. Supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Minister stated there were four items that she named off. One of them was TB testing. Which health boards have not delivered that aspect of the core programs?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult as some of the results of these findings are coming in, when we do not have the overall picture, to put it into context. I am reluctant to name specific boards or specific regions where there are issues like this because I do not think it is really fair to single out specific boards without the complete picture. So if the Member could bear with me until we have this information...we said the end of June. We are hoping that perhaps it can be expedited and we can have it even sooner, given some of the early results that are coming in. However, it is difficult to centre out one board.

We might say this board has an administrative and financial functioning problem and then we might find out by the end of the review that it is not just that board, that it might be more system-wide. I have given you some general areas and I hope that will suffice until we have the report. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Minister. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the Minister's statement, if she does not want to give the name of the board, could she give us some idea of how many boards we are talking about that do not deliver TB testing? We have nine health boards. Are we talking eight out of the nine or are we talking about three out of the nine? Could you just give us a rough number of how many health boards have not been delivering that core program?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister responsible for the Department of Health and Social Services, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, one of the other aspects of undertaking this system-wide review -- and I mentioned this in my statement -- is we are looking to find the facts of what are the things that might be contributing to the programs and services not being delivered in the best way possible. However, it is not intended as an exercise to find fault. It is just to identify where the weaknesses are so that we can be more prepared to address them and to make the best and most prudent decisions on behalf of the people we represent.

At this time, no, Mr. Speaker, I am only aware of one region where the TB surveillance has not been up to the standard. Having said that, that does not mean that is the only place where that is not occurring. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Minister. The time for question period has ended. Item 7, written questions. Questions écrites. Item 8, returns to written questions. Item 9, replies to opening address. Item 10, replies to the budget address. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of this Assembly, we once again have the opportunity to look at the big picture. Let us look at the fiscal situation when we first had opportunity to look at it as Members of the 14th Legislative Assembly. We were told that 74 percent of our revenue comes from the formula financing agreement. Another seven percent in transfer payments comes from Ottawa as well. We were told that if we tried raising our own revenues through taxes and such, there is little impact on our budget.

An example given is that ten percent increase in taxes would net us only one and a half percent. Without new revenues, the next few years will be characterized by cuts and deficits, we were told. What has changed so drastically that we are now in a position of a surplus?

Once again, when we first came together as Members of the 14th Assembly, the fiscal projection stated that revenues for 2001-2002 would be $726 million. Expenditures would be in the area of $814 million and by year end, we would have a $160 million deficit. Now, the 2001-2002 total appropriation is estimated to be $878.187 million.

We were also told that we would hit our borrowing limit by year end when we first came in. I recall being told that own-source revenues and a small portion of total revenues and increases had virtually no impact on a fiscal situation.

Mr. Speaker, in the 2001-2002 Budget Address, Minister Handley states our short-term fiscal position has significantly improved over last year' s forecast from a $13 million deficit to a $23 million surplus.

In 2001-2002, he is predicting the surplus of a couple of million dollars. He states, and I quote from page 5 of his address:

"This turnaround is directly attributable to our successful efforts to constrain spending, coupled with a much more positive revenue picture."

Mr. Speaker, in the detail provided in the budget address document, this government spent $47.62 million more than what was spent by year end March 2000; $47 million more and predicting $16 million more from April 2001 to March 2002. Mr. Speaker, this is considered constrained spending?

Mr. Speaker, the one item I see as a contributing factor, as the major contributing factor, to our remarkable turnaround is the fact that we received corporate taxes as never seen before in the Northwest Territories. Mr. Speaker, corporate taxes jumped from $7.6 million in 1999-2000 to $102 million in this fiscal year. The Minister goes on to predict another banner year for 2001-2002. Estimates of $116 million in corporate taxes. If this is the case, why do we need any fee increases?

I do recall, however, a statement made when we first became aware of an increase in corporate tax revenues, the Minister stating that this was a one-time anomaly. Now we are budgeting it to grow and basing our expenditures on it. Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago, we were presented with a gloomy picture. We were told that trying to raise revenues from our own sources through fees was not a good idea. Now we are banking the Highway Strategy on it. Why such a change in direction?

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to me that our need for a resource revenue sharing agreement will become critical as we set sail for another year in the so-called "Good Ship NWT."

In closing, Mr. Speaker, as I see it, this can be called a stargazer's budget. I hope Minister Handley's stars are not just someone hanging Christmas lights in the distance. Wishful thinking is not what I believe we should be budgeting on. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Item 10, replies to the budget address. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By and large, in these early days since the budget address last Thursday, I think the document is seen to be fairly positively received by most of the Northwest Territories community. Generally speaking, I think it has been characterized as a spend-and-invest kind of budget. I would like to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, my support for the general direction of the strategy of the government at this time. This economy, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is going to need all the capacity we can give it over the next few years and the kind of move the government has expressed it wants to carry out are in line with building capacity.

I think we also have to be careful in one sense in how we project ourselves as a government to industry, not only here in the Northwest Territories but industry across Canada and to our neighbouring governments and the national government. With the scale and scope of development that we have out there on our doorstep and largely into the door here, Mr. Speaker, our message should be one of optimism and one of a fair amount of fiscal aggression.

If we hesitate, if we balk, if we doubt ourselves and our confidence in the future, I think this is the kind of message that will roll out there and be picked up by industry, by our neighbours and as the saying goes, could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Again, Mr. Speaker, my general support for the strategic direction. With a borrowing limit of $300 million, the budget suggests that we will be at a net debt limit of $251 million by the time the fiscal year is complete, essentially leaving us with a $50 million balance. For the most part, Mr. Speaker, I am comfortable with that degree of exposure, if you will, and I am also comfortable with the quality of the debt that is assigned to those funds. I think we are in a reasonably comfortable position there.

The numbers, Mr. Speaker, really tell of an economy that is on steroids. Our final domestic demand will grow by $472 million to $2.7 billion, an increase of 20 percent. Total investment will rise to $956 million, an increase of a staggering 68 percent. Employment will grow by three percent, I believe just over 20,000 of our people. Weekly earnings will reach $851, up three percent, which is already, Mr. Speaker, up 8.8 percent from last year.

The numbers also tell a story that we are a "have" territory from my assessment, Mr. Speaker. Further, that we must press, as my colleagues have been discussing, that we deserve a share of these resources and access to a resource devolution plan and access to those funds.

Through the total revenues anticipated in this budget of $806 million, $540 million of that is coming from the federal government, or 67 percent. The documentation in the budget, Mr. Speaker, suggests that the federal government will earn in each of the next 27 years some $818 million. I compare that to $540 million that is coming into this government by the formula financing agreement and other transfers. I think this shows, Mr. Speaker, that we are, by that measurement, a "have" territory.

I guess it is no wonder that the federal government wants to keep us under their thumb. We have turned into a pretty good cash machine. All the more reason then, Mr. Speaker, for the government to keep up its pressure for resolving a devolution deal and to keep up the momentum on the Intergovernmental Forum processes, Mr. Speaker, in which we have put a fair amount of trust and confidence. I understand we are going to have to wait until early April until the next real event comes along in that area, but we have to be optimistic and we also have to be demanding, Mr. Speaker, that this process does indeed give us some results.

On the major initiatives announced in this budget; roads, early childhood development, literacy, potential hydro export, employment...these are issues that we have talked about, Mr. Speaker, in this Assembly, in our committee meetings and in our Caucus meetings for the past year since this government took office.

For me, there is no great surprise. Government is now trying to bring these issues to ground in a format or way in programs and policies that we can now measure; we can anticipate; we can challenge; we can test. I am sure from the government's point of view, in some fashion we will be able to approve.

So this is where again I feel support for this because these are things, as I say, that have been talked about. Now the government is taking the instruction and trying to deal with them.

In the critical areas, I guess I will look at three or four topics here, Mr. Speaker. If we are facing a slight surplus, we are anticipating a slight surplus, and we would be theoretically hopefully looking for balanced budgets for at least the next few years, why then does the government continue to keep the hotel tax on the books? This is a tax that has generated a very negative response so far from the public. There are some pockets of support for it, but by and large, it is a plan that is not well received and I think at this time, not even well-known or understood by a number of people. That is probably why it is so unpopular right now.

Again, though, I would ask the government, why is this tax still on the books if our financial situation, as my colleague Mr. Roland pointed out, has taken such a gratuitous and positive turn?

The cumulative impacts, Mr. Speaker, of some of the measures that the budget contains, I mentioned the hotel tax. The highway toll is fairly well understood. There will be new airport and transportation fees. We have already heard the discussions about the increases anticipated and the need upon us for power and energy, Mr. Speaker.

These are impacts on the cost of living in the North that are going to be coming in or that are indeed with us now in this fiscal year and the next few months ahead.

So you will be hearing more from me, and I think from my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, about the cumulative impacts of all of these factors, some of them within government's control, some of them not. We are expecting, Mr. Speaker, to do a good job of anticipating and managing these impacts on the pocket books and on the backs of the Northwest Territories citizens. That is my assessment right now. We have to be careful with the cumulative impact.

While the highway toll seems to be, at least in its early days, reasonably well understood and I think accepted, I will be looking for some more information on the amendment or the adjustment, Mr. Speaker, to the cost of living increase, which I believe is a good way of offsetting the cost that we will all experience through this. However, the issue for me will be one of how can it be applied equally for all residents when indeed we will be experiencing different costs.

For instance, Yellowknife has some 600 kilometres of tolled road upon which it will be paying some fees. Compare that with Inuvik, where there are approximately 300 kilometres, and communities which have even much less. It seems that it is going to be difficult to come up with a way of equitably applying this. I will be looking for some information there.

Our greatest concern surrounding this budget, Mr. Speaker, lies in our capacity as a government and a civil service to implement and deliver these new projects. I think the civil service is already under extreme expectations to carry our existing programs.

We have a turnover rate in government, Mr. Speaker. I could not get an accurate number this morning but I am quite confident that it exceeds ten percent. However, what I am looking for as we layer on these new initiatives and these new incentives, hopefully or potentially what other programs or policies or initiatives might be coming off the table that are going to make room for all of these new things that we want to do.

One assessment is new positions that the government is going to be asking for, a total sum of 45 new positions. Information suggests that the Department of Justice alone will be absorbing 44 of these. My understanding is that these are already in large part existing jobs that are being folded into the civil service.

What I am not seeing, Mr. Speaker, is evidence that we are bringing in new people, new strength, to implement and carry through these programs. That is my greatest concern. Can we deliver? Can we implement and do it with quality?

I will be looking forward to the details of implementation and plans that are practical and doable and that will not put stress on an already taxed workforce. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Item 10, replies to the budget address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 14, tabling of documents. Item 15, notices of motion. Item 16, notices of motion for the first reading of bills. Item 17, motions. Item 18, first reading of bills. Item 19, second reading of bills. Item 20, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters. Bill 19, Appropriation Act, 2001-2002; Committee Report 5-14(3), Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight Report on the 2001-2002 Main Estimates; Committee Report 6-14(3), Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development Report on the 2001-2002 Main Estimates; Committee Report 7-14(3), Standing Committee on Social Programs Report on the 2001-2002 Main Estimates, with Mr. Krutko in the chair.

We have several items before the committee. Bill 19, Committee Report 5-14(3), Committee Report 6-14(3), Committee Report 7-14(3). What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to recommend that the committee consider Bill 19 and Committee Reports 5, 6 and 7 concurrently. Specifically, that we start with general comments on Bill 19 and then perhaps move into consideration of Health and Social Services.

Does the committee agree?

With that, we will take a short break and begin with Bill 19.

--Break

I would like to call the committee back to order. We are discussing Bill 19. At this time, I would like to ask the Minister responsible if you have any opening comments. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, no, I do not. I gave the budget address. I do not want to read it again.

Thank you. General comments on Bill 19, Appropriation Act, 2001-2002. General comments. What is the wish of the committee? Is the committee prepared to go department by department?