Thank you, Mr. Bob McLeod. Mr. Robert McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to the Premier for his reply and to Mr. McLeod. I didn't think the two were linked together. I'm glad the Premier explained that to me because devolution, as far as my understanding, would take a little longer, but the point I'm trying to make is that the resource revenue sharing deal is something that we need to push. I understand the devolution talks would be a little slower, but, as the Premier stated, we have money leaving the territory every day and still we continue to negotiate. I mean, I'd kind of like to know as a last point in question is where are these negotiations at? Are we negotiating right now? We've been hearing talk of negotiating for an awful long time and talk and talk, and I'm not sure how much talk back and forth there should be. But it should, as far as I'm concerned, be a fairly simple process. Our resources, you pay us the royalties and I'm of the opinion that it's time we started seeing some results. I'd like to know from the Premier, are the negotiations ongoing even with the changes in the government? Have they always been ongoing, or is it something that's negotiated between the Premier and the Prime Minister in power at the moment and the Prime Minister previous? So that's what I would like to know, is if the Premier himself is negotiating on our behalf with the Prime Ministers of the country, or is it negotiations that have been taking place behind closed door?

I am glad that the Premier mentioned the two, the devolution and the resource revenue sharing, and I'd never linked the two. I always thought that we've got to get the resource revenue sharing part on the go, like, quickly because it is starting to be something that concerns me a great deal to have all the money leaving the NWT all the time. So there's, I believe, a couple of

questions in there for Premier Handley. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Robert McLeod. Mr. Handley.

Madam Chair, the negotiations have been stalled since early last summer, I believe it was in June. There have not been negotiations since then. Our experience was that the negotiators were getting further and further apart and we're not making progress. So it stalled at that time. Since then, our two staff have been doing background research work and waiting for political direction. With the change of government, it was necessary to meet again with the federal government to get clear direction. The Minister of DIAND, on Friday, committed to coming here in March, so this issue is between the Minister and myself as Premier, at this point. If we can't resolve it at the political level, then there will at last be clear direction to our negotiators of how they should proceed. So, Madam Chair, I look forward to the Minister coming here and moving this one ahead quickly.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Next I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. One other issue that is really quite bothersome is the fact that the Department of Finance -- and I know we are on the Executive, but I am getting to where I am going -- lost the Bureau of Statistics to the Executive and I think that's a great move from a government-wide perspective. I think it belongs in the Department of Executive. It never belonged in the Department of Finance. They do a tremendous amount of good work for the Government of the Northwest Territories and I am glad it's where it's at now. The problem I have is, because the Bureau of Statistics was removed from the Department of Finance, all of a sudden we get this macroeconomic policy division in the Department of Finance when it would seem to me if the government is really interested in strengthening strategic planning and socio-economic analysis, it would only do the right thing and allow the Bureau of Statistics, all the Department of Executive, whether it's strategic planning, Bureau of Stats, allow them to do that work.

I have a great deal of difficulty accepting the fact that the Department of Finance was allowed to replace the Bureau of Statistics with this macroeconomic planning division; three PYs. I don't know if it even needs to be three PYs, but if we could get a couple of people, just for starters, why don't we get one or two people and put them in the Department of Executive, put them in the Bureau of Statistics, under the leadership of Mr. Stewart and we can get some good work done there?

I am wondering where the stewardship is going to come from in the Department of Finance. I know the Finance Minister is very capable, but he's not there everyday and he's not directing the charges. If we are going to get any of this work done and it's going to be done effectively, I think we have to try to take those positions from Finance and maybe put one or two of them, for starters, where they belong and that's in the Department of Executive. If you want to coordinate the approach and you want to put it together, I think that's the best step you could take. Again, we are piecemealing it by allowing the Department of Finance come back to us asking for three PYs for a macro socio-economic policy. It just doesn't make sense to me. I would like to maybe get the Premier's take on that coordination and how it could best be dealt with. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The decision was made to put the macroeconomic section in Finance mainly because of the fiscal characteristic of macroeconomics. In the old days, or up until now, we basically get a grant. We get money from the federal government and we just manage expenditures. We really don't need to have a macroeconomic section. But when, as a government, we evolve more and more with province-like responsibilities, with resource revenues, then we will not only look at how we spend our money but we are also looking at how the money is invested, what's happening to global markets, what's the best way of us dealing with things like trust funds, heritage funds, with taxation policies. There are a whole host of things that fit into macroeconomics.

So, Madam Chair...Sorry, Mr. Chair, at this time, it's our decision to place it in Finance. We may, at some point, want to revisit that. At this time, after reviewing it, it was Cabinet and Financial Management Board's decision that that probably rightfully belongs more in Finance, although one could argue that it should be in the Executive, or in ITI, or wherever else. Because of the fiscal importance of it, we chose to put it there. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier Handley. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I am going to lose the argument again today. I lost it last week when I tried to move a motion to pull the $491,000 out of the Department of Finance. I guess I am just going to have to take a different mindset on this. I believe if you are going to go through a process of coordinating government functions and go down that road, this shouldn't have been allowed to happen. Again, I get back to the coincidence. Is it a coincidence that the Bureau of Stats moved out of Finance one day and, all of a sudden, they want to replace it with something else? We can't miss that interpretation. That's the interpretation that I get. I am not saying that the work doesn't need to get done. Somebody, obviously, has been doing it for a number of years. We don't produce 14 percent of the world's total production of diamonds; we don't have a pipeline from Norman Wells without some of that macro socio-economic policy work getting done somewhere. I know the Finance Minister told me the other day that it has been getting done. Since 1999, it's been getting done in house.

Again, I just want to state again, for the record, that if you are looking at true coordination, that division or the new policy division belongs in the Department of Executive and it belongs under the heading of the Bureau of Statistics and it fits nicely in there. It doesn't belong in Finance, in my mind, but I guess I am outnumbered on that one. That's my feeling on it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's macroeconomics, not macro socio-economics, first of all. It's just macroeconomics. It is very fiscally embodied in terms of its main responsibility.

The fact that we put it into Finance and Finance had lost the Bureau of Statistics, that is just coincidence. I can tell you there is no advantage in doing that to balance out numbers in some way. There was no thinking like that. It was simply that our feeling was that the macroeconomics piece belonged primarily in Finance.

Now it has been done piecemeal and we've had consultants. With our diamond markets, with oil and gas coming, with other minerals, with resource revenue sharing arrangements hopefully being achieved within the next little while, it's very important that we do more than just manage our expenditures and negotiate a formula for how many dollars we get from the federal government. Our government is evolving to the point where we need to have that macroeconomics unit.

Putting it in with the Bureau of Statistics could work. The difficulty there is that the Bureau of Statistics basically has a responsibility to the whole government, all departments, to collect good statistical information and draw some conclusions from that information, but not do a lot of policy interpretation on that. That's up to each department to do their own policy decisions, whether it's Health, Education, Transportation or whatever it may be. So giving them the authority to collect the statistics and do that extrapolation and then, at that same time, asking that same body to do the conclusion to it would be compromising the role of the Bureau of Statistics and may not fit that well. But, Mr. Chairman, these are things that we can debate. However, it works, we are all one together; we have to work together. I think it would be worthwhile, if we haven't done that yet, is to have a presentation to the committee at some time on the parameters of macroeconomics; maybe do the same thing with the role of the Bureau of Statistics, as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Premier for that. I don't want to keep this going much longer and the Premier said himself, if each department is doing its own policy, then why do we need a macroeconomic policy division in Finance? If the responsibility is with each various department, then why do we need three new PYs in Finance? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Premier.

When I say each department is doing its own, I am saying, for example, that the Department of Health would look at the health statistics from the bureau and see what the statistics are on addictions and treatment, and then they would create a policy around our services in that area. That's the kind of policy they would be undertaking. When it comes to a macroeconomics policy, there is no one except Finance who are doing that in a comprehensive way. Even, as I said, Mr. Chairman, it hasn't been that comprehensive now. It hasn't been a big issue, but it is becoming a big issue for us. We do need one department that is going to take the lead on it. We looked at it and it was our decision to place it in Finance and certainly, depending on how effective it is there, we would be open to reviewing that with the committees in future. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Page 2-27, activity summary, executive offices, operations expenditure summary, $6.596 million.

Page 2-28 and 2-29, activity summary, executive offices, grants and contributions, grants, total grants, $150,000.

Contributions, 2-30, total contributions, $500,000.

Total grants and contributions, $650,000.