Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for that. I look forward to seeing something anyway. I can understand that the development of this policy framework is hopefully going to put all these pieces together that he's talking about, that the work that's been done that's scattered all over wherever in closets and on shelves and in consultants' offices. So we need another half a million dollars to put all these pieces together. Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We've identified the amounts that we need for the unit. Let's see if I have it here. For 2006-07 ongoing, we are

looking at the area of compensation benefits of $36,000 and other expenses, $59,000; compensation benefits under fiscal policy...I guess those first two numbers I gave you fall under directorate and finance administration. So the $36,000 and $59,000 fall under directorate and finance administration, compensation and benefits and other expenses; fiscal policy, under that section, compensation benefits of $345,000, other expenses of $51,000. That comes up with a total of $491,000. In 2007-08 ongoing, we see it being in the neighbourhood of $414,000.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this $491,000 is over and above what the government has invested already, even if we go back to '99, even '89 or '79, I think there has been a lot of investment into this area in the past. Why do we need an extra half a million dollars to do work that people are already in positions to carry out supposedly? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As I stated in the past, the work that was done was either project specific, for example, the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, the impacts that that would have across the territory, as well as another piece of it looking at our fiscal relationship and how that needs to be fixed with Ottawa. The work, as I stated, was a piece at a time, an activity or event that we would hear about coming up and doing some of that work. If we are going to be, as a government, ready for the development that seems will be ongoing, not just one event at a time and the growth that's happened in the economy that's happened since 1999 only lends to the fact that we need to put some adequate resources toward this to do a proper job of it. That's why we are coming forward asking for this position.

I know Mr. Ramsay has stated time and time again about the growth and the government bureaucracy and how this needs to be in other departments, but when you look across jurisdictions in Canada, it is within the Department of Finance and helps around our fiscal policy arrangements in those areas. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. I will wait until the motion has been circulated. Okay, I believe the motion has now been circulated. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I am moving the motion to delete the $491,000 because I don't believe I have heard any real compelling evidence from the Finance Minister as to reasons why we would have to spend $491,000, add three PYs to the Department of Finance. Like I mentioned earlier in my opening comments, I find it very ironic that the Bureau of Statistics has just recently been reassigned to the Department of Executive and, again, I think it's not a coincidence that this macro economy research policy division is looking to be added in the Department of Finance. Therefore, I move that we delete the $491,000 from the appropriation act. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. To the motion. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to be speaking against the motion. As the discussion has been going, I understand this 491 is more or less allocated for the creation of another unit, a new unit to look at larger scale economic policy and situations, which is something that I think has actually been distinctly lacking from our toolbox of planning abilities, planning skills. At one time, I think there was this kind of skill hired and in place in this department, but I don't know that it has been of late, given the kinds of economies, activities that we are moving into or hope to move into; given the way the economies of the western provinces, at least the Yukon, and the NWT are going to become more and more integrated; given the mobility of our workforce, I am in favour of establishing this unit and the $491,000 that is more or less allocated to do this. I believe this is going to be an investment that will benefit us. It's not going to be all that easy to measure or see what difference this will make. It's one of those less tangible things, but I think this is a proper thing for our government to be doing and I will not be supporting the motion, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to this motion to delete $491,000, I am not going to be supporting this either. I have given it further consideration and fiscal policy and future growth of our Northwest Territories depends on strong advice and strong programming. It's a huge expense to increase our workforce by $491,000, but often when you are looking at the big picture, you are looking at equalization panels, you are looking at a strategy to devolve the powers from the federal government over to us, you are also looking at resource revenue sharing arrangements. Those are the kinds of things that we want, we are asking for that. One of the ways that we can best understand is we need the proper advice and the proper consultation in order to get this done on the macroeconomic scale. With that, Madam Chair, I will be speaking against the motion. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Madam Chair. I don't think deleting the $491,000 is going to make much difference on our macroeconomic policy capacity building, so I can't really support the motion on that basis. I would like the government to take notice that just throwing money out there and hiring more people doesn't mean we are going to come out with all the answers. I would like to see the GNWT develop a macroeconomic policy framework that applies to the government itself, and then have a one- policy framework for the NWT. I think a lot of times a lot

of departments are just going off on a tangent and taking a lot out of their departments with it. Then we wind up with a whole government that's gone awry with respect to any large development issues that are coming our way and ones that are on our doorstep.

So with that, I also can't support a policy because I know, like my friend was just talking about, we have a lot of things coming our way and it's good to get a good, clear picture of where the government fits into the whole scheme of things and how we can make our situation better for the future. I hope this is something that is not an ongoing revolving door policy framework that is going to be developed with pieces added as we go along. I hope you get a clear understanding of where we sit in the federation and in the NWT after spending all this money. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just quickly for the record, I won't be supporting this motion. I respect the Member who put it forward and I know there may be consideration of not getting enough of an answer or satisfaction with what's being done in that area and I respect that the Member probably does have a very strong position and feeling that way. It's the unknowns at this time that cause me concern and that's not saying that the mover isn't right. I am just saying that it's the unknown cause me some concern without knowing what is going to be the impact if we do this. I think that's one of the challenges here about taking the carpet out from underneath their feet on this issue. At this time, I am not comfortable, although I respect why it's being moved. I will leave it at that. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be voting against it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I am just sitting here listening to colleagues going back and forth on this $491,000 and creating three positions, debating that the work could still be done from within. It has been done since 1999. Then there is a new horizon on the need to focus on the expert panel. There needs to be a real, true focus. The Minister highlighted that the outcome hopefully will be this spring that the expert panel will decide on equalization and territorial formula financing. This clearly shows that although we are creating three positions, the fiscal policy, this will be a true test to see if the departments will focus on this equalization. So I, too, won't be supporting the motion after deliberation. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. To the motion. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I will close off debate on this motion. To me, it's more about principle than anything. I know we talk in committees all the time about the growth and the size of government and its uncontrolled growth and here we have a classic example of a department, Madam Chair, who just recently lost the Bureau of Statistics. Now in this appropriation act, is attempting to replace the loss of the Bureau of Statistics with three new positions. Once the positions are in place, they are there. You might as well etch them in stone, Madam Chair. I have always put my foot down when it comes time, even though these positions are in Yellowknife, I just think they are not needed at this time. The work has been done in house from 1999 until today. What more evidence does anybody need to suggest that the work can continue to get done? Even if some of it has to be contracted out, Madam Chair, we don't need three new bureaucrats. Thank you very much.