Mr. Speaker, I want to support the intention of this motion. I do not think the intention is anything we want to argue with, or does anything but complement the efforts that we have been making as a government on this one.

I do want to point out several things, though. Last year, we had tremendous price increases and we did implement, along with the federal government, the one-time fuel rebate that was put in place. I want to emphasis "one-time".

At the direction of this House, we are undertaking a number of initiatives that the House has asked us to do. I am just a little concerned that we may be beginning to trip over ourselves here by having one set of directions, and before we get through with those ones, having another set of recommendations following up right behind it.

Last spring, we were asked to monitor the price of fuel and report back. We have been doing that. We were asked to come up with a program to look at ways we could help businesses, and we have been doing that. There are a number of initiatives that are ongoing right now through Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development to determine to what extent we need new programs and what those new programs would look like.

We are already doing some things that are not 100 percent consistent with what is being asked in this motion, but I think are aiming in the same direction. That includes some of the major initiatives in terms of assisting Inuvik with the gas pipeline, the work we are doing on the Hydro Strategy, on the new Environmental Technology Program we have initiated this year. There are a number of things that are ongoing.

I think we have to be careful we do not get so many directions and recommendations out there that we get confused about which way we are going before we put together the basis of the strategy.

One piece of the motion that caused me a bit of concern is the statement that the benefits of the program be received by Northerners by October 31, 2001. That is a pretty quick turnaround, to have programs all in place, a strategy in place, a program in place, and the cheques going out to people by the end of October. Realistically, can we be expected to achieve that kind of deadline? I doubt that we can have a whole energy strategy put together and benefits paid out to everyone in any orderly fashion by the end of October. I hope there is some flexibility on that one.

As well, I think any kind of energy subsidy has to be looked at as something that is responsive to the price of fuel. It cannot be just an ongoing subsidy that is paid out regardless of what happens to prices. As a government, we need to have that flexibility to be able to adjust any sort of subsidy program according to prices.

I am optimistic that the price of fuel is going to continue to go down. Some may not share my optimism. It is going to be hard to tell who is going to be right in the end. I doubt prices will go as low as they have been in the past, but I expect that they will be lower in the short term, at least in the next few years, than what we have experienced last year.

We do not want to get into a situation where we are getting into permanent subsidies because permanent subsidies do not work. I have seen various kinds of those over the years and they lose their meaning after a while.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the intention of the motion, there are some things in it that I believe are overlapping with the direction, the recommendations and the advice that has been provided by the House already. We want to be careful that we do not trip over some initiatives before they even get completed. Second, it is just a heads-up that I really do not believe that we will be able to deliver the benefits of this energy strategy, energy program as early as next October. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. To the motion. The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting this motion. I think it is a good motion. I specifically wanted to speak to the suggestion that we need another fuel subsidy.

I did a statement last week about fuel subsidies and suggested that the next time we do one, we have to get it right. We have to make sure the thing meets the objectives that we set out for it. I think the last fuel subsidy that we did, although it was well intentioned, I tend to think that we may have rushed it through and not taken the time to flush out the details that were necessary.

I think this is evidenced by the uptake in the last program of 70 percent of the original budget was spent, Mr. Speaker. I think that is why I asked the written question today about this 70 percent uptake, and why we excluded so many residents and did not allow everyone to have some relief.

I think the next time we do this, we have to look at it for small businesses as well as individuals. There is a perception that small business can simply pass on the added costs into the price of their goods, and residents, at the end of the chain, will end up paying these costs. It is not always the case, Mr. Speaker. I think oftentimes, small business in small markets are not pricing their goods based on the cost of goods, but often on what the market will bear. In smaller communities, this is more likely the case in many instances.

I think we have to look at something that provides relief to small business, and I do not think that this has to be contrary to other initiatives that the government has going on at the same time. I think we could sit here forever waiting for relief if we waited for all of this government's strategies to come to bear, Mr. Speaker. I think we have to move more quickly than that.

I also believe that the next time we get into a subsidy situation, we should not exclude people on the basis of income. We saw situations where there were people making well below the threshold who, for one reason or another, were getting a slight line on their cheque that suggested part of their wage was a fuel subsidy, they were automatically excluded.

There were other people making a few dollars over the cutoff, yet they were running a larger home because they may have had lots of children, big families, one income in the family, they still did not qualify, Mr. Speaker. I think that is a shame. I think these things have to be based on expenditure. If people are paying for fuel, they should be getting relief. I think that should be the only criteria, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I think this is a good motion. I was disappointed that the government did not support this the other day. I am glad to hear Mr. Handley state that he agrees in principle. I believe the time is now for action on the part of this government to provide relief to all of our residents. I hope the government will take this motion and our recommendations seriously. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. To the motion. The honourable member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I as well would like to speak in support of this motion. I see the main thrust is a short-term remedy to get ready for this coming heating season, which is not that far off. The longer, more strategic plan would come later, as the Premier has indicated. He is starting an Energy Secretariat that is going to report to him. It is going to have the mandate to come up with this broad energy strategy, as well his Hydro Secretariat, that is going to have a related function.

Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, the price of fuel, while Minister Handley may think is going to go down, the reality is that it has come up very, very high. It is not going to go down to the same levels. I just saw a survey done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which indicated that is the number one concern among small businesses in the Northwest Territories, the high cost of energy, heating and fuel.

I think that sentiment would be shared by every private individual as well. I think this just provides reinforcement and support to the government to move ahead with this kind of very important program. Let us do it now, and not be like the grasshopper and fiddle away until September or October. Let us be like the ant and get ready for the winter we know is coming.

I would strongly encourage the government to take this motion in the spirit it is intended, to support the initiatives and efforts of the government to deal with this very complicated issue. However, we have to ready for the winter. Now is the time to start planning. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the motion. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of this motion as well. I think that we really need to develop a plan that will help all.

As we have heard, the rebate plan that was developed last year did not really help as many people as we thought and were told it would. In fact, I have constituents who did not qualify, even though their total amount of compensation was $30,000 less than what the cap was on the program. They could not qualify for the rebate program.

Why? Because they had a line on their cheque that said fuel rebate. Mr. Speaker, these were single moms who could not qualify, even though they should have within the salary guidelines that were set for the program.

We need to be prepared with a program that is better thought out for next winter, and that takes some time.

The Minister has said that he does not think that it could be ready for the fall. The program we had this past winter was announced, then developed and then paid out in a matter of weeks. That, Mr. Speaker, was part of the reason for the problem. It was developed too quickly and we missed some of the people that should have qualified for it.

We need to take from now until October to make sure we develop a program that gets to as many people as possible. I think that it is also time, as other Members have said, to bring in a program that will consider small business.

If we are not careful, high energy costs could eliminate many jobs in a lot of our smaller communities. I hope the Minister is right, that the cost of energy is going to go down in the next few months, but I do not think that it will. I think that we have to be prepared for that.

In the short-term, we need to have a program that is ready for us to talk about in the fall, one that will eliminate the flaws that we had in the last program.

The second part of this motion deals with the long-term energy strategy that, Mr. Speaker, the government has already committed to and is moving forward on. I think that what we are trying to do here is encourage the government to take a two-pronged approach.

One, move forward on a comprehensive energy strategy, which should include a rate stabilization fund to benefit Northerners in the long-term. However, in the meantime, and in the short-term, we need to have an energy rebate program for this coming winter. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. To the motion. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues have covered a number of good points. I was pleased to hear that the Minister has not dismissed the idea of an energy subsidy.

There may be issues to do with timing, but I would certainly hope that the government will pick up the challenge of addressing more comprehensive energy rebate programs for the cost of Northerners in that time.

I would like to make a point that, Mr. Speaker, in a number of programs, this government is already engaged in energy subsidies that are valued in the millions, and perhaps even in the tens of millions, of dollars a year. Reflect on the Power Support Program, on the Seniors' Fuel Subsidy, on income support clients who, through housing assistance, receive an indirect subsidy for their energy costs. A number of communities are benefiting through the petroleum products division, also indirectly from the provision of government supported infrastructure for their fuel systems.

Our point here, Mr. Speaker, is that a belief that if we took these individual pockets where this government is already engaged in energy related support, we would already have a very substantive core fund that could be used on a more universal basis, as my colleague Mr. Dent said, to provide an even greater assistance and incentive for businesses to set up.

Those are the kinds of things that would be very progressive and it would go into a long-term program to not only assist with the high cost of energy, but stabilize over the long-term this essential part of our life up here in the North.

-- Applause

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the motion. Question has been called. Before that, the mover has the last word. Mr. Delorey.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few words on the Minister's comments. I am glad to see that he is in support of the intention of this motion.

As far as a one-time fuel rebate that he mentioned, this is not committing the government to any yearly subsidy or program. I think that this is kind of a one-time thing to address our residents' needs in the coming winter.

Energy, heating our homes and lighting our homes is not an option in the Territories. It is something that has to be done. We know that is going to be expensive next winter. We would like to see something come into place.

As far as timelines are concerned, as was mentioned by my colleague, Mr. Dent, the last fuel subsidy rebate that was put in place was a very short time frame. It was something like three weeks. So we thought we were being very generous when we said by October, 2001. We think that is a good time to give it some thought and make sure that it is done right and that it benefits as many of our residents as possible.

We know there are a number of initiatives in place within the government to deal with energy, and I encourage that. I hope that those initiatives continue, but I think we have to do something in the short-term. We have to do it quickly. By October, I think we have time to look at it and have the government do it right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

-- Applause

Thank you, Mr. Delorey. Is the House ready for the question? Question has been called. All those in favour, please signify. Thank you. All those opposed. The motion is carried.

-- Applause

Item 16, motions. The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS certain annual reports and the reports of statutory officers presented to this Legislative Assembly require review and consideration by the House;

AND WHEREAS these reports require referral by the House to a committee of the Legislative Assembly for review;

AND WHEREAS it is desirable to establish a referral process in the Rules of the Legislative Assembly to facilitate reviews by committees;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Weledeh, that Rule 85(2)(d) of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly be amended by adding after Auditor General:

"In the event that the Assembly is not in session, the Speaker may provide the Auditor General's Report and the Minister of Finance may provide the Public Accounts to the committee for review, which may include public hearings in advance of tabling";

AND FURTHER, that new rule 85(2)(f) be added as follows:

85(2)(f) "Review, as necessary and appropriate, the annual and other reports of statutory officers of the Legislative Assembly, including the Commissioner of Official Languages, Conflict of Interest Commissioner and the Information and Privacy Commissioner";

AND FURTHERMORE, Rule 85(2)(f) be renumbered as 85(2)(g) and Rule 85(2)(g) be renumbered as 85(2)(h);

AND FURTHERMORE, that Rule 85(4) be rescinded and the following be adopted.

85(4) "The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures shall:

1. a) Review the reports of the Chief Electoral Officer on the conduct of elections, plebiscites or votes conducted in the Northwest Territories in accordance with statute; and
2. b) inquire into such matters as may be referred to it by the Legislative Assembly, the Speaker, or the Board of Management.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. We have a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

Item 16, motions. Any further motions? Item 17, first reading of bills. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Handley.

Mr. Speaker,

I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Sahtu, that Bill 4, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 1, 2001-2002, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. We have a motion. The motion is in order. All those in favour? Thank you. All those opposed? The Chair recognizes that the motion is carried. Bill 4 has had first reading. Item 17, first reading of bills. Item 18, second reading of bills. The honourable member for Weledeh, Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some reservations in regard to the size of this supplementary that is presently in front of us. We just passed the main estimates a couple of months ago, yet the size of this supplementary is pretty large, knowing that we are not out of the woods yet with respect to the deficit situation that we just got out of. If we have a bad fire season over the summer, I believe we may be back in those trees. I think that we as a government have to realize that we are spending the main portion of the whole supplementary appropriation reserve that is supposed to be there for the whole year through this one supplementary.

I think we have to be cautious when it comes to expenditures knowing that we have a process in place where we as a government and we as Members have a say in regard to how the expenditures are going to be done through the business planning process that we all go through, and that the departments should plan ahead for these expenditures. Yet, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of expenditures in there which were not even part of the main estimates or planning process that we were looking at just a couple of months ago.

I realize there are some important issues out there, but we have to also realize that we are not better off than we were a number of years ago. If Members can remember from the 13th Assembly, we had a major deficit situation where we had to cut over $100 million. That was a lot of pain for everybody in the North. I feel that we as a government and as Members of the opposite side of the House have to realize that the supplementary appropriations should be used only in cases of emergency. We should not be using dollars because we want to establish a new program where we missed the timing of the capital planning process. I do not think it is fair to our communities.

The communities I represent, in the case of Aklavik, they have an alcohol and drug centre which they cannot use because it was condemned by the Department of Health and Social Services because the sewer system froze up and they cannot even have gatherings or meetings with clients. These situations are happening in our communities where those projects are not part of this year, but yet we have allocated a lot of dollars to different groups.

I think we have to realize that it should only be used on an emergency basis and only when it is absolutely needed, and we have to use supplementary appropriations for the whole year and we cannot use the large portion of it just a couple of months after we passed the main estimates in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I will be having more questions on this matter when we go forward.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the principle of the bill. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I too share some of the same concerns my colleague from Mackenzie Delta stated. We are early in our fiscal year and we are already, according to the numbers that are being presented, over expending our supplementary reserves. That is a concern to me. Since becoming a Member of the 14th Assembly, I have made my concern about our fiscal position as the Government of the Northwest Territories known.

Mr. Speaker, within two months of the budget being passed, the fact that we are already expending the supplementary reserves gives me concern. We have ten more months to go, with the more expensive season yet to come, the winter season, for extra costs as a government.

I know Members have been calling for more expenditures in areas, but I think we really need to look at what we are doing and how far we are willing to go. I understand that some of these figures in the supplementary appropriation are for carryovers and for capital projects, and those are understandable. Sometimes projects do not get completed on time so the money is carried over, but there are areas where there is concern, Mr. Speaker, when we are so new into the fiscal year that we are already having to deal with forced growth. That, Mr. Speaker, gives me serious concern.

We are just beginning the year and the time of the year when things would be considered to be less expensive. For example, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the energy costs are lower during the summer and prices, as we heard Mr. Handley state, of oil and gas have been dropping. We know that they start dropping in May because the demand, for example, for home heating oil goes down. They again start going up in October, as is the cycle for many years. We will be paying more then. Departments will have to pay more. If we are already dipping into forced growth areas that were unaccounted for, that gives me serious concern as to what is going to happen in the near future when things start getting colder and darker once again.

There are some important initiatives in here and, as Members, we will need to look at that. I myself intend to question some of the requests for funding.

As well, Mr. Speaker, the area of special warrants is one of the highest areas that is being called for. That basically tells me as a Member that it has already been expended. The money has been spent and we are just going through a process now. It draws serious concern in that area, Mr. Speaker.

With that, as we are going through it, I will be questioning the Ministers on their requests for more funding. Thank you.