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.