Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to take this opportunity to make some general comments on the Minister's opening statement, as well as on the department. This is my first chance to publicly respond to the unveiling of the division of the department. I have to say that I know that the Minister and his staff have been working diligently over at least a year in working this out and I'm sure it was difficult, but I was expecting something new and more innovative. I have to tell you that I am disappointed that we are going to be creating new positions. I'm not going to say that it was an easy thing to do, but I was expecting more. To see that last year, under RWED, we had five superintendents and about 10 directors, I think, and we're going to create virtually the exact replica with the exception of creating five more superintendents and two positions sharing administration. I guess we could always justify why we need to have new bodies or enough bodies to do our work, but in the big scope of things we're not being responsible in doing it this way, I believe.
I note that $1.7 million that's going to go into the carrying out of this mandate, $1.7 million of new dollars that needs to go in, that is $1.7 million every year. I wonder what the tourism industry could do with $1.7 million every year that was not able to be found when the tourism industry asked for more money in tourism and other investments. But it seems like it's available for every year forever, now that the government has decided to create this new department. I also note that $1.7 million could build an indoor facility in Nahanni Butte. That's about exactly the money that we're looking for and every year we could be creating a $1.7 million indoor gym to Kakisa, to Nahanni Butte, to a number of other communities. I know we're supposed to stay within the department's mandate, but for the people who are sitting outside in the communities, they have to look and wonder how the government sets out priorities. The government sets out priorities that this department's mandate was conflicting and we're going to do something about it. They send off a Minister and the deputy minister, they work hard for a whole year, and they come back and create a structure that is the twin of each other and that creates five new superintendent positions. People have to wonder how they get $1.7 million every year to do what they need to do in communities. It seems to me this is a result of nobody losing anything. It was like, if you needed to be convinced that there will be a new department created nobody has to be affected about anything because they're just going to...It's like osmosis. It's just going to be easy. Just create two of everything almost. I am really disappointed with that.
Another thing is this new outline of organizational structure, when you look at ITI and then you look at ENR, to me it really speaks to the philosophy of the government as well. Everything about ITI is staying intact and ENR is looking a lot like a very junior department. I really think it reflects the philosophy of government of being very pro-development, pro-pipeline, and I don't know if any of the latest broadcasts in the media and the attention that we're hearing from the communities, if that's any indication people out there are not ready. I don't think people are ready for the pipeline. I don't think they really care that we have really nicely designed, neat departments that we've created. I don't mean to be harsh, but I find it hard to sit here and look at RWED from last year and ITI is an exact replica, except that you took out two or three directors and created five new superintendents. I wonder why we don't have pipeline readiness under ENR and a director in charge of social development. If we had to create all those new senior positions I wonder -- I know there are persons attached to these positions, so when I'm saying this I hope nobody takes this personally -- why we need a director of minerals, oil and gas and then we have diamond projects, which is a mineral, and then we have a director of energy which is the same as oil and gas. The Mackenzie Valley planning office has to do with oil and gas development. It seems that everybody needs to have a hat and we had to keep the two ADMs and nobody had to lose anything.
So this is my first opportunity to say anything about this and I just think it would have been harder, but it should have been done in a way that would not have created $1.7 million a year every year going forward, because that money could not be found when the tourism industry asked for that sort of money or we're not able to...I don't know how we prioritize the government spending. That's one big objection that I wanted to bring to this. I'll just end it there because I think the Minister will probably out speak me on this thing. So I'll just see what he says. Thank you.