Thank you, Mr. Handley. A motion is on the floor. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Bill 20 has had first reading. Item 18, first reading of bills. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, that Bill 21, An Act to Amend the Public Service Act, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. A motion is on the floor. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Bill 21 has had first reading. Colleagues, I have a correction. On the first bill that was introduced by Mr. Handley, I said it was Bill 20. I should have said Bill 22 has had first reading. Item 18, first reading of bills. Item 19, second reading of bills. Item 23, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, with Mrs. Groenewegen in the chair.

I will call Committee of the Whole to order. There are four bills before committee today. What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Menicoche.

Madam Chair, the committee wishes to consider Appropriation Act, 2005-2006.

Thank you. Is the committee agreed?

Thank you. Then we will proceed with general comments for Bill 19, Appropriation Act, 2005-2006. Mr. Braden, general comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yesterday afternoon I was able to, in my Member's statement, give a quick sense of where I felt this budget will take us and, after a day's reflection and a good night's sleep on it, I can certainly say that I feel better as an MLA in this Assembly this year or today looking forward, than I did a year ago.

The fiscal picture has become much more certain for us and, to our credit and our benefit, we are able to see the vast majority of our programs maintained. We are able to see finally, after years and years of being choked back, Madam Chair, our capital investment and infrastructure program finally starting to come back to levels that would give us the chance to not only maintain and restore what we have, but maybe even do a few extra things. So we are in a much more stable and positive-looking position here.

The Minister and his people, Cabinet, deserve the acknowledgment and congratulations on this. They have, through my satisfaction through our committee work, kept us advised and informed of which way we wanted to take this government. So I have very little room to argue or criticize, Madam Chair. I have much more cause to be complimentary of where we are so far.

This does not entirely leave us off the hook. I use the collective word, Madam Chair, because as we go forward with this, we all need to recognize we have responsibility and accountability in how we manage and steward our resources.

As I said yesterday, the area that causes me the greatest discomfort is that our overall fiscal future is not ours to determine. In fact, where we have for years duked it out with the Department of Finance and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs on what our fortunes are to be, now we have the creation of an expert panel on provincial-territorial equalization, if I have the term generally right, which is going to be a new bureaucratic administrative creature, Madam Chair, with a host of new people at it who I don't know how familiar they're going to be with our situation. I'm concerned, Madam Chair, that this panel has yet to be formally constituted and put to work. There's an expectation that by the end of this year we will have some decisions and criteria worked out. I want to be hopeful and optimistic that this is all going to happen, but we have seen these processes and deadlines come and go without really delivering. I would raise again this is where my caution is, where my concern is. So for the next fiscal year we will still not have the really well-defined, clear parameters of what our financial situation is to be. I do look forward to a positive outcome but, in the meantime, we still have a degree of instability, Madam Chair.

When I was listening to Mr. Roland's address I was keeping a bit of a score card and I think I have something like 12 points that came up for me on the good side of this budget, about seven or eight that were not so good, and a couple of wait-and-see items. I guess in the spirit of our discussion right now, Madam Chair, general comments, I would give you what to me are the highlights here and the things that I'm very pleased to see us take into the coming year.

We have the second highest employment rate in Canada in the Northwest Territories. We are going to be in our, is it fourth or fifth year, Mr. Premier or Mr. Finance Minister; our fourth or fifth year of double digit economic growth in the Northwest Territories. It's the fifth year, I hear. That's a remarkable record.

We have a fiscal policy approach, Madam Chair, that I'm especially supportive of because it will hopefully, with the collaboration of the folks in the Finance department in Ottawa, be able to free us from this outdated, outmoded, arbitrary debt wall that we operate in so much fear of. We are going to see a much more progressive way of planning our debt, looking at our borrowing. It's going to be, I think, very easy to manage. It will be easy to use. It will be easy to understand. This is one of the things that I think is a bit of a breakthrough for us. There's a lot of stuff that goes on with financing and with government that is impenetrable. It is really hard for people to grasp. This is a program that I think will be easy to understand.

The level of community government, devolution, if you will, is really healthy, especially on the infrastructure and dollar point of view. This is something that was on my list of objectives as a candidate and MLA, and I'm really pleased to see that we're going to be rolling this agenda out to improve and increase and expand governance at the community level.

The completion of the Rae to Yellowknife highway will happen next year, thank goodness; and here I think we have to acknowledge that Ottawa has come to the fore, realizing what our situation is and helped us accelerate this program.

The split of RWED is something that I think will, in the long run, serve us better.

Madam Chair, there are no new taxes or tax initiatives undertaken in this budget and I'm hopeful that for the rest of the term of this Assembly we will not need to undertake any other tax initiatives. We did a lot of work on that last year in this Assembly. I think it was good work, but I'm hopeful that we'll not have to go back to that again.

Madam Chair, as I said, the wait-and-see agenda has been outlined already with the panel that will decide our future for formula financing. I think we also have to put a watch on the agreement-in-principle on resource revenue sharing. The Premier has been very consistent in saying his expectation, his belief, his trust is in the Prime Minister to deliver on the agreement-in-principle by this spring with a final agreement by next year.

So that, Madam Chair, would cover my opening comments on this budget. I look forward to engaging in the line-by-line detail discussion of each department over the next few weeks. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland, would you be wishing to respond to Mr. Braden's general comments? Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I either can do it individually or after Members are done their general comments. I'm open to either way. I think I can respond to Mr. Braden's one comment at this point.

First of all, just to say thanks for the support on a lot of the initiatives. We've worked hard as Members of the 15th Assembly to put this budget together. There were some difficult decisions that had to be made on moving forward with this, trying to bring some balance to our expenditure requirements as well as increasing our revenues. I really believe this budget puts us on a footing going forward that is much better than we've seen in the past. As well, we're moving out and reaching out into the communities to start helping them with their difficulties on the infrastructure side.

As the Member pointed out, we're estimating another banner year in the Northwest Territories when it looks at our economic growth. We're looking at the area of 10 percent for this year we're in. Tying it to the previous four years, yes, we've done very well in the Northwest Territories. But we also recognize that there are still many difficulties being felt out there by residents of the North in communities. We do have the second highest employment rate, but at the same time when you look at the difference in the North between our larger and smaller communities, we still have a fair bit of work to do and we recognize that.

As well, I'd like to thank Members for their support around the fiscal responsibility policy. That is something that I think is another area that we're showing that we as legislators for the Northwest Territories and the Government of the Northwest Territories are moving on into another area, and are more able to take care of our own fiscal picture instead of relying on the federal government setting out some mandatory limits for us. It will make this government and future governments accountable to those who elect them, as well as a Cabinet to the Members of the House.

When we look at the work that's ongoing with the equalization panel that is looking at equalization for the provinces as well as formula financing for the territories, that is an area that we, as well, are anxious about to see what details begin to flow, and we are waiting for the opportunity to once again plug in with our views of how it is worked or not worked and what should be in a formula. Should we be moving along in that area or should we be sticking to formula financing as we know it? Those are things we will have to deal with in a short time coming up. I think in that area, because it impacts all of the provinces and territories, we will see movement on that. It's in the best interest of the country to get on and bring that to conclusion in the timeline that's been set out. We're looking at 10 months. It does leave us with some apprehension as to what may be the future for our fiscal situation in the Northwest Territories. That just means that from our end, where we have control, we need to continue to be vigilant with how we deal with the dollars we have available to us.

As well, we've heard the Premier say many times, and the support of this House, is to see a successful conclusion to the resource revenue sharing negotiations that are tied to devolution. So that is something I think again, with the commitment from the Prime Minister, that has added to the work that's going to get done on it and the commitment on the part of the federal government. But it's something that we need to continue to pursue aggressively for the benefit of the residents of the Northwest Territories.

I look forward to having Members and departments go through each section of the budget and bring it hopefully to a successful conclusion when we've completed this budget process. Again, thanks for the comments and the support. I look forward to some of the questions and comments as we get into the detail. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on the list for general comments I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to start by congratulating the Minister for a fine budget address yesterday and the presentation of the budget that was conducted yesterday. I know both the Finance Minister and the Premier and the rest of Cabinet have worked very hard over the course of the last year to try to make do with what we have and also to secure some additional funding from the federal government. I applaud their efforts in that and look forward to perhaps working with them going forward to secure more of that funding, especially in terms of the resource revenue sharing, which, as everybody knows, is crucial to the future development of our territory.

I'm going to make a reply to the budget address, but just to highlight a few things for the Finance Minister and provide a few comments. I spoke yesterday and going through the budget exercise, the business plans, the draft mains, one of the recurring themes for me was the growth of the public service. I tried to bring that out again yesterday with my statement. I didn't mean any offence to the union or the public service. What I'm suggesting is that we've allowed this to reach a level where I don't believe it's sustainable over the long run. It's approximately 40 percent of our annual expense, and I don't believe it is sustainable to have that increase every year. We're going to sign a new agreement with the unions here shortly and who knows what that percentage is going to be, but where this money comes from causes me a great deal of concern. Are we going to, just because we have a surplus, eat that surplus up in any kind of new contract? There are going to be other contracts that come and obviously the compounding factor has to be taken into account. I think the Finance Minister has gotten that message through our deliberations thus far and he'll further perhaps get that message, from me anyway, and perhaps from other Members on this side of the House, over the coming few weeks as we go through the budget.

I had mentioned, as well, the fact that the secondary industry, the diamond industry, was left out of the budget address. I know it's included in the manufacturing shipments numbers, but there's no specific reference to the secondary industry in this budget. I think that's an oversight that is ill timed, given the fact of the problems we're facing with the Sirius factory.

I'd also like to mention the fact that the government always speaks of the support that it provides to the tourism industry and it just seems to me that it's just lip service. It doesn't actually come forward and it hasn't come forward recently with any new additional monies for tourism. I think that's an oversight in this budget. Of course, as we go through the various departments I'll draw attention to that as well, but I think it's something that again we have to put our money where our mouth is and if we want to promote ourselves as a world-class destination, we're going to have to spend some money, Madam Chair. That's one thing.

The fact that the Minister mentioned yesterday that economic growth shouldn't only benefit large corporations, but it also has to benefit the young men and women and the residents that live here, I think that is a crucial statement and I look forward to holding the Minister and the government to that. I think that's a key component of it.

As well, I know we went through an exercise last year of having to take a look at our tax initiative. We raised the payroll tax last year from one percent to two percent. That's something I didn't feel that strongly about and I'm hoping the government might try to revisit that decision and, given the fact that our numbers are a lot better this year, consider maybe removing or rolling back that one percent. People are just going to start paying that and it's going to not cost everybody, but it is going to cost residents here more. For some of them who are definitely in the higher tax brackets, it's going to cost them more to live here.

Also in the budget -- again getting back to the Collective Agreement that's coming forward -- nobody knows what the numbers are going to look like, but there's no mention of that in the budget, where the costs associated with any new agreement are going to come from. I think that's something that at least could have been...Negotiations are tough, so it would be tough to ballpark something like that, but we should have some kind of idea what we are willing to go forward with.

As well, there is a statement the Minister made yesterday something to the effect of remaining aggressive, looking for efficiencies and better ways of doing business. I know there have been some examples over the course of the past year where I think we have had an opportunity to try to streamline, to try to be more efficient, and we just haven't done that for whatever reason. That's something I would like to work with the Minister and with the government on going into the future to try to get some more streamlining, more efficiencies.

Our graduation rates are one of the lowest in the country at 43 percent. You get phone calls from constituents that their sons are going to kill themselves, they've got guns and there are crack dealers showing up at their house. You know, crack is a really big issue and so are other addictions here in the Territories. I don't think this investment of $200 million has addressed that. Maybe it's not just the money, Madam Chair. Maybe we have to re-examine where this investment goes and what it is earmarked for. In my opinion, it hasn't addressed the social ills this territory is faced with. There really isn't any evidence of that investment paying off to date. I would like to make that clear.

The one other thing before I wrap this up, and it has to do with resource revenue sharing and the negotiations that are ongoing for devolution and the fact, again, that the government on a yearly basis is forging ahead just spending money on negotiations. This year it's $1.8 million for the continuation of devolution and resource revenue sharing negotiations. Yes, they're very important and the money spent is probably money well spent, and I would suggest that we might even need to spend more, but there's something fundamentally wrong with the Government of the Northwest Territories having to spend its own money and resources, the finite resources that we have, to try and get something that is rightfully ours, Madam Chair. I'm not sure how the Premier or the Finance Minister can address this with Ottawa, but to me it's wrong that we have to go and spend our own money, what little money we have, trying to chase down the dollars that are rightfully ours. Something about that doesn't quite add up for me, Madam Chair.

As well, during the next couple of weeks, perhaps when MACA is here, I want to talk a little bit about the breakdown of the infrastructure money to the communities; the 55/45 split. The fact is that 75 percent of our population, Madam Chair, live in tax-based municipalities. The money can be better leveraged if it is in the tax-based municipalities. I'm not quite good with that split and I don't know why it happened that way, but we'll try to get to the bottom of that as well.

Also, in terms of apprenticeship and trades, I know the government blows its horn on the number of apprentices it has and we had the apprenticeship awards ceremony here in the House a few days ago, but I don't think we're putting enough money into it. If our apprenticeship has grown 20 percent in the last two years, where's the evidence that we've got the support on the other side of it to look after the apprentices? To my knowledge, we still only have one apprenticeship officer here in Yellowknife and that's something I think that...and, you know, it all comes back to priorities, Madam Chair, and that's what we have to work towards.

I know my time is running out, but certainly I'll have my comments ready for a reply to the budget address when the time comes. Again, I do appreciate the hard work and commitment that the Premier and the Finance Minister and the rest of Cabinet have shown over the last year, and I look forward to working with them to find some priorities and objectives for the coming year. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. I didn't hear any specific questions there, so I think I'll just take those as general comments. I have next on the list for general comments, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would also like to offer a few comments on the budget. Yesterday I made a statement about the fact that this is overall a good budget. It certainly is not as gloomy as the one we heard last year. It was very depressing to watch the Minister of Finance last year going on and on about what a dire situation we were in. But to his credit he's worked hard, and Cabinet and everyone else, to get to where we are, and the fact that we got some extra money from the federal government and that took a lot of work on the part of the Cabinet Members, as well as the Premier and the Minister, and I appreciate that.

I would like to state also that I support the fiscal responsibility policy framework and not as something that gives us free reign on borrowing, as I was quoted as saying. I don't believe that it's a licence to borrow more, although it might give the government more room than the $300 million limit that we have. What I like about it is the element in it that commits the government to get some surplus money to fund these capital projects. It does call for fiscal responsibility on the part of the government so that we use some belt tightening to fund capital projects. I support that and certainly I'd like to see the government moving toward spending at least 10 percent of our total budget on capital infrastructure. I think we fell as low as five percent over the last number of years. I'd like to see us moving toward 10 percent as quickly as possible.

Madam Chair, there are some things that I would like to see more of. I don't want to go over all the good news items we have about the completion of Highway No. 3 or the Deh Cho Bridge over the Mackenzie River. Those are things that I had hoped to be working on when I became a Member and I know that I'm going to be ecstatic when all that gets done.

However, I want to point out some things that I think we're not spending enough money on. One of them is tourism. I do believe that the tourism budget was under threat of being reduced, but we didn't get there and we did reinstate funding. Still, I really think that's an area that's being neglected. I think also that the government has to decide what they want to do with tourism. We do have independent bodies that look after tourism, but also the government is involved still, as well. If the government is going to do it, they should be properly resourced and have more people in the government doing it. If not, we should just let the independent bodies, like NWT Tourism, look after that so there is less chance of duplication and that there could be a comprehensive territorial tourism strategy being planned and implemented by the people in the know directly. I really think that's an area that needs a lot more attention and a lot more resources. I appreciate that we probably could not get to as close to what our neighbours to the West in the Yukon spend and their government spends on tourism, because the tourism industry takes up a lot more prominent role in their economy, but I really think we're falling short in that area.

The second thing I want to talk about is something I talked about yesterday and that has to do with education. This morning on CBC Radio there were lots of very interesting statements made by the citizens of the North. I find it very educational and it just always amazes me how commonsensical and thoughtful people are. I wish we could have a 24-hour phone-in network where people can just call in and tell us what we need to know. Anyway, one of the phone calls talked about the need for education and...I just lost my train of thought here. I think everyone agrees that the basis for...None of what we do, whether in the Mackenzie Valley pipeline development or the diamond industry or whatever wealth and prosperity that's going to come to the North as a result of any kind of development will be of any benefit to anyone unless our people are able to get the education and be able to take on those jobs. What's happening right now is that there is a lot more interest from the students that are a lot younger than high school level. Even junior high school, grades 6, 7, 8. The youth mature faster nowadays and they are interested in trades. We have in Yellowknife a trade school where their trade program at a high school level is really attracting a lot of young people that we might otherwise lose because they're not interested in an academic field or they're interested in considering an alternative education other than strict academic courses. I see that and I see that being under-resourced and I see that government is not able to get behind it or not getting behind it as much as possible. I see that as a model where it can be set up and implemented in other regions of the Territories. I mentioned yesterday that there's a statement here about the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment getting into a curriculum development that has to do with trades in high school. But I really think if we made any commitments, that we haven't gone far enough in addressing that. In the last Assembly, the first legislation we passed was to reduce the PTR and speak about education. I know that this government is doing sort of what they did before, what the previous government did, but we haven't heard the government really coming out and saying that this is where we want to focus, and we're falling behind in that area. So I know 10 minutes is not a short time, but it's amazing how fast it goes.

Madam Chair, I just want to ask the Minister of Finance -- I don't know if he can answer this or if I should wait for the Minister of Education -- if he has any idea about what is meant by the announcement in his budget on page 10 about the new high school courses being developed for emerging northern occupations? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, what we're looking to do in that area with the Department of Education, Culture and Employment in the area of high schools is to begin to look into and start getting into the area of trades itself. Realizing, just as the Member has stated, that not everybody who is going through the school system is going to want to go into an academic field and rather probably would like to go into a trades field. With the position we are in now in the Northwest Territories, we know there's a large shortage in the trades area. So the Department of Education, Culture and Employment is starting to work in that area and refocus to a certain degree, as first steps anyway.

As well, when you look at the apprenticeship side, we are, again, working and hearing the advice of committee members putting more money into that side of it, again realizing that there is a shortage of trades workers in the Northwest Territories. At one time the Government of the Northwest Territories used to be very giving. When it had its own shops -- carpentry shops, mechanical shops -- it trained a lot of apprentices and the apprentices have moved on to the private sector and had their own businesses and so on. So it's something we see ourselves starting to get back into, along with tying to the ASEP or the program where we've tied together with industry, the federal government and ourselves, to train up to hopefully 800 individuals in the North and have them successfully employed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. General comments. I have next, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this opportunity just to provide a few general comments. Madam Chair, I find it very difficult when we see this in our budget. It was read into the record

yesterday, and I welcome that by the Finance Minister and I think he's leading us in certainly a strong direction so, overall, all our citizens can have benefits. But it wasn't that long ago, in October, that we had read some strong motions from this side of the House into the official record. I find we're sort of missing those types of actions that this side of the House has led with. Over 50 percent of the Northwest Territories is represented on this side of the House. At that time it was 10 Members who voted in favour of things like benefits on our northern resources. I think actually that got unanimous consent, to be honest, from the House; that would be all Members.

Affordable housing and access to housing was a big issue from this side of the House again. This side of the House represents more than 50 percent of the constituents in the Northwest Territories as a whole. Establishment of treatment centres, addiction and treatment centres; there was a strong motion about putting one in Inuvik and in Yellowknife and how we treat those issues.

So I'm concerned that this budget did not hear this side of the House. We can go line by line, as we will next week, and we can talk about each specific department under each social envelope, whether it's GED or Social Programs. I think the government understands that there are problems out there, but it seems like when membership tries to bring forward issues that the community people are saying -- and that goes from both Yellowknife to Inuvik all the way to Smith to Simpson all the way up to Colville Lake -- the people are saying they want these things. If you have practically 60 percent or 65 percent of the people in the Northwest Territories saying we want these things, why is this government not listening? I don't know. It's as simple as saying these motions passed; 50 percent plus passed these motions and I find it very difficult to say, well, this is a great budget, this is a great speech, without identifying some basic needs.

This side of the House didn't come up with a wish list of 1,000 things. In the last few months we said principally we have three or four issues that were significant to our residents of the whole Northwest Territories: again, treatment centres, accessible housing and benefits to northern resources. It's a simple message. How is the other side addressing those requests by Members on this side of the House? I think we're falling short on those issues. I think we've heard that we're missing out on training, and all of a sudden there's a change of gears to put more money into training. I think that's a significant step to aid our people in the Northwest Territories. But I'm still concerned because we talk about pre-construction of the Mackenzie gas pipeline, but I'm afraid that our territory's residents are going to miss the bandwagon. So unless you're in one of those special high profile, already rich businesses who can sort of turn on a dime to be able to be prepared to negotiate or apply for contracts or whatnot, I think the general membership of our Northwest Territories people are going to miss that opportunity.

That goes back to the motion of benefits to the Northwest Territories. Where is our government standing here? It emphasizes areas of the Northern Strategy, but we need our Territories to dig in and say no more. There was discussion in the back room just today about what one pipeline, one group getting their way with our resources. There's nothing we can do to stop this pipeline if the National Energy Board says it goes forward. So our government needs to dig in and say we need to take control.

I'm pleased to see our taxes are at a safe level, at least a consistent level. I'm waiting for the day to hear from the Finance Minister -- although it's not said here -- to say when we change corporate tax from 12 percent to 14 percent if we've had any significant adjustment, whether anyone has refiled somewhere or not. So I'm looking forward to those discussions, but I think under our northern strategic plan on how we deal with Canada, something needs to be done. This document does speak a lot about some of our needs up here. I think it doesn't identify who we truly are. I read into the record earlier today about the difference between us and Canada; 46.2 percent of growth versus the 12 percent from the 1999 to 2003 period. What more do we need to wake up the big lion of Canada and say hey, we're an engine here, we've got resources, we want to contribute, we want to be a full partner? I'm not seeing that here. I'm seeing soft statements that we're afraid to offend the federal government. I'd almost have to say we need a lesson from Danny Williams about how to stand up tall and strong and look that Prime Minister in the eye and say damn it, we're in charge of our own area, because these resources are just going to keep flowing along and the National Energy Board is in charge of that pipeline and, at the end of the day, they're going to make the ultimate decision.

So I'm not sure; I'm satisfied for moving forward, but I am very dissatisfied because I go back to what I started off by saying, the natural resource motion has been ignored. Addictions treatment centre has been ignored, and affordable housing barely scratched the surface. It's not being addressed. All the Members on this side of the House, our communities need to be treated fairly.

So as far as anything else goes at this time, I don't have a significant question. I have concerns with the lack of investment for our Expo plan that's in here. I do have some concerns on how we're going to deal with hydro in the future and whose authority we really have over this hydro potential. Who has the authority over the rivers? What consultation efforts have we done thus far?

I'm very pleased to see -- I stress, very pleased to see -- that we're going to create a centre of excellence with the Department of MACA to work with the communities so they can help levy infrastructure money and move forward. They are a good department listening to those particular issues, because the small communities, including places like the city of Yellowknife, do not have the resources to get out there and beat those bushes. So MACA is taking a lead to help them. I'm glad to see that there isn't any significant clawback, but I guess, at the end of the day, what are we doing?

So housing...I mean, you guys have to pull up your socks and I can see that this session is going to be a tough one for lack of policy for dealing with disabled people. We need a policy to make sure folks are treated fairly. I'm going to tell a horrible story next week about somebody who is disabled who has run into problems and we're going to have to start dealing with these things. So housing, I certainly think, is not being addressed and we're going to be challenging that.

So at this time no significant question; just a little griping, one could say, at this time. I'm generally pleased in some

cases, and some less pleased. I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Next on my list I actually have Ms. Lee, but Mr. Menicoche has not spoken to the budget yet. So I'll go to Mr. Menicoche for a general comment.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I, too, when the Minister was giving his budget address, was flagging things that kind of concerned me. It was interesting as I went through what concerns me. What stood out the most, of course, is infrastructure for the communities, and it's not so much Nahanni Butte lacking infrastructure, of course, it's the whole hamlet/village issue Madam Chair, that concerns me as well, because here we have a community that's struggling to meet it's O and M and because of its taxation label, we're unable to get any new infrastructure money or our community cannot grow infrastructure-wise just because we're spending all our money on O and M. Here we have a unique opportunity too, because of the federal MRIF plan, et cetera. The community of Fort Simpson can't even access that because it doesn't even have a surplus in order to make their one-third contribution, and that really saddens me. I believe the Minister is aware of that and there's going to have to be some way to really deal with it.

But the sad fact remains that they don't have their one-third contribution even today. In fact, there's some old contribution money that they don't want to give up, and they are still trying to match dollar for dollar from old water and sewer funding that they currently have. They are just trying to match that and now we're asking them to match another one-third. So we're going to have to take a good hard look at that infrastructure, as well.

In terms of capacity building, several Members brought it up and in terms of pipeline capacity issues and that still has significant concern for me. The latest statistics that we have out there is that 53 percent of our aboriginal workforce is employed, 83 percent of the non-aboriginals are employed as well. So the non-aboriginals basically have full employment, and in our communities only half of the aboriginal people are working. It's no wonder that communities in my riding particularly are not giving overwhelming support to industry, because they don't stand a chance of getting any of the good jobs. So if they are not going to benefit, it's like I've always been saying, why support it if I'm not going to get anything? I'm not going to bother supporting this, and that's what's going on out there.

So in order to give them a unique opportunity, one of the things to do, of course, is to raise their skill level, their marketable skills, and that's why giving them a chance when they're young in school or even, indeed, the young adults that are out there. Recently I was made aware of an education program where the success down south...It's based out of Calgary, they're running it in the small reserves around Rocky Mountain House. There are about 10 communities that they're using this program on and it raised their course completion rate from 30 percent right up to 80 percent, and their graduation rate has increased, as well, to about 80 percent. Even nationally that is unheard of; an 80 percent graduation rate. But if you really think about it, once you are completing your courses, then you have a good chance of graduating.

So those are some of the things that are on my plate for this year is to say alright, can we take that course, can we bring it up North, can we have a look at it, can we even pilot it out there? I know how hard it is to chance our Education, Culture and Employment bureaucrats' thinking on how to best educate our children and I think if anybody knows best, it's ourselves who have been through the system and live in the communities. So we're going to have to really look at that. That's important to the people back home and it's something new and I'd like to try it and I would like government support in giving us an opportunity to try that, even if the people don't like it and it fails. But I think the basic thing here is that we saw something, we tried it and we don't know if it works or not, but I think our people and our children and our youth deserve an opportunity to at least try it to see if it fits our unique way of doing things.

In terms of the pipeline, I made an extra special pot of coffee this morning to listen to the pipeline recordings, especially with Judge Berger being there, and I was quite curious. I believe overall -- I was kind of trying to keep score -- people are in support of it, but they don't like the way it is happening and there are great concerns. That's the same way I am. I said cool, I stand with these people. I'm concerned about how it's being implemented. If the people and the communities are going to gain or lose really concerns me, because we know what happened the last time and I will keep saying it, is that we lost. This time around is no different. There are court cases and all that happening. Some are beyond our control, but at the same time, as a Legislature and as a government, we still have a unique opportunity to have input with this socioeconomic agreement. We learn every time. The first time, our socioeconomic agreement with that first pipeline was a dismal failure. It didn't even last a year. We gave it a bit more teeth with the diamonds; maybe not as much as people like, but there were some teeth there. We can take it one step further for this new mega project. It's $8 billion and I believe our government can make a difference for our communities and say look, if you're going to work around here, you're going to have to leave something behind and help our communities. At the same time, the claimant groups have to do their share too. They have to do their due diligence and take care of their people, but I believe that we don't have to be rubber stampers either. Yes, we're in favour of it. It will be a boom to our revenues if and when we get to that point, Madam Chair, but at the same time we still have to make sure that our people in the communities are taken care of, because these are multi-national corporations. They are not going to give us anything. It's their job to rape and pillage, Madam Chair. So we have to do what we can in order to protect our people and that's part of our mandate, each and every one of us as MLAs.

With that, Madam Chair, I would just like to conclude that in terms of the budget I really like the way it was responsive to some of the community needs. It didn't address all the needs, but I believe we're getting there. With that, I remain. Mahsi cho.