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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am going to support the motion because, like some of my colleagues were saying, it seems to be wanting to grow and grow and grow. I like the five technical officers in the district. If I had my way, the lands officers would not be in here at all. I would make a motion to put them as technical officers who can do some land work. The technical officers, the ones I know, can do a bit of everything. To have lands officers going into the district office, I would just as soon they be technical officers. That would give us 10 in the districts and I would be wiling to support something like that. With that, Madam Chair, I will be supporting this motion. Like a lot of my colleagues, I think there are existing resources within the Housing Corporation that could cover a lot of this work. I truly believe there are existing resources in all departments that could cover a lot of the work that we keep wanting to add new positions for. Thank you.

---Applause

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know that the Housing Corporation has been having lots of problems delivering programs to the regions. I know that this is one of the ways that they want to address it. I know they have been asking for positions time and time again and there is just no support for it then. But now that the federal government is contributing some $50 million and we have a chance to get housing on the move beginning immediately, I am going to vote against this motion.

Often when I am travelling to the regions and communities and talking about their frustrations about getting their housing delivered, like Fort Liard, this is the third year that housing has not been delivered and a lot of the problems are because of a backlog and administration. This is one of the ways they are going to address it. They did hire a new president that I hope will be on the ground and getting out into the communities really quickly, and get out there with his new eyes and address all our housing strategy needs in the different regions and communities. It's because the corporation had no eyes for a little bit that I believe nothing was happening. Just overall, Madam Chair, my gut feeling is telling me it's not helpful to be deleting these positions, especially when it comes to housing. With that, I will be voting against this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Hawkins, to the motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. On the matter of the motion before us now, I won't be supporting it. I see that we often complain about not delivering housing and meeting housing needs in the communities, and this is certainly going to cut them right at the heels and the delivery of the programs. I don't think we are doing it any favours. Either we are in the housing business or not. If we start cutting half of this and half of that, we won't have anything left over.

As far as identifying headquarters positions versus district positions, I don't find that very responsible. I am not comfortable with that. Headquarters is in Yellowknife. Here we are creating an opportunity here in our community and I think it's unfair that we have targeted Yellowknife specifically, because it's Yellowknife and I can't stand for that. We are focussing in on jobs that just go to Yellowknife and we are should cut those, that's ridiculous. I can't support that.

Lastly, I want to say when we talk about just the Yellowknife positions, those who want to cut them, I see that as lack of vision. We are cutting out the leadership and the administrative process on this. In other words, it makes it very difficult for the lands officers without the administrative component. At the end of the day, I am not comfortable with that. I will be voting against the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion.

Question is being called. All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

NWT Housing Corporation, operations expenditures, not previously authorized, $1 million, total department, $1 million.

Thank you. Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, not previously authorized, directorate and administration, $59,000; education and culture, $6.8 million; advanced education and careers, $1.007 million; income security, $696,000; total department, $8.562 million.

Thank you. Mr. Menicoche.

Your motion is in order. It's not debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Page 20, Transportation, operations expenditures, not previously authorized, corporate services, $536,000.

Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just had a couple of questions on the $222,000 for airports not previously authorized. It gets back to discussions we had with the Minister of Transportation last year, actually it was two years ago now, about the $6.2 million coming from CATSA. In my estimation, and I wanted to ask this question, whether or not the Government of the Northwest Territories knew upfront that this bomb detection equipment and the baggage screening system would require us to have an on-staff electrician and an on-staff millwright to look after this equipment on an ongoing basis. It's $168,000 a year. If we weren't advised by CATSA that that was the case, it seems to me that they should be paying the price for that, not the Government of the Northwest Territories. They imposed us to have this type of security measures at our airport, so why aren't they paying? I guess that's the question, Mr. Chairman. Why is CATSA not paying to have this work carried out? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this request has come in and it impacts on a number of things. One is the size of the footprint of the building is one of the areas that has increased the impact of O and M that is required. Yes, the department is requesting two more positions -- one electrician and one millwright -- as the Member stated.

As well, there is a change in contract for janitorial services as a result of the increased size of the facility. As well, because of the increased size of the facility, the power consumption has increased as well.

One of the issues that is outstanding and the department is continuing to try to negotiate with CATSA is around the recovery from them. At this time, we've only got a commitment for about $22,000. So the baggage and screening system, the total amount there is $219,000. Other commitments that are not related to that total $138,000. Those are those two positions, as well as some other minor areas and the janitorial contract, less the pre-approved amount of $210,000. The department is now requesting $222,000 to deal with the areas and overrun areas in this project. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am still trying to understand why it is that CATSA is not paying these additional costs. I haven't heard that from the Minister yet. Why isn't CATSA paying for the additional costs? The other thing is, I find it incredibly hard to believe that we need an electrician and a millwright to look after the conveyor system at the airport. Why can't we go out and hire a millwright that is an electrician? Why do we need two people? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the area of the recovery being sought from CATSA, the department has identified the fact that most jurisdictions right now are having their difficulty accepting what CATSA has put forward as their amount. There seems to be a unified amount for these areas of O and M. I don't believe many jurisdictions have agreed to that, so the discussion is ongoing. For further discussion around the CATSA discussions, we could probably have the Minister of Transportation provide a little more detail in that area in what has occurred in other jurisdictions as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Minister McLeod.