Thank you, Madam Chair. Joining me at the table here to my left is the director of budget management evaluation, Mr. Sandy Kalgutkar, and to my right is the manager of budget development evaluation, Mr. Charles Tolley. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Now I'll turn to the Members and ask if the Members have any general comments on Bill 8. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The bill is quite large, as supps go in this Assembly, and it may be a little, deceiving is the wrong word, of course, but in its inclusion is a very large number of carry-overs, both in cash value and in quantity, from the previous year, Madam Chair. Some $75 million of this is, in effect, for projects that this Assembly has already approved from the previous year or, potentially, even years. These projects are, of course, uncompleted and what the Assembly is doing here is simply reaffirming the money that was unspent from last year can continue to be spent this year to complete these projects.

But in that context, Madam Chair, it seems that the numbers of uncompleted projects is quite large. Committee's been provided with detail that itemizes these and, without doing a line-by-line count here, I think we're in the neighbourhood of perhaps well over a hundred and maybe even a couple hundred projects spread across our various departments.

Madam Chair, I wanted to ask the Minister about this aspect of the bill in general comments, just to see whether or not there is, you know, is this on the Minister's radar screen here? Why are we having to cope with this number of uncompleted projects from previous years? Is this a trend? Are we indeed experiencing a growth in our capacity, our inability, to finish the jobs that have been presented to the Assembly, and here we are having to sort of reaffirm or revoke the money, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, specifically in the area of capital carry-overs, it is a concern and as we've looked at it I guess we look at a term of we're at the beginnings of a trend, I guess we can say. We've looked at significant growth, for example, in carry-overs from the previous years' budget process and this year again further growth in that area. It is a concern for us. It is on the radar screen. We are looking at a number of factors and working with the departments as to what we can do as a government overall to try and curtail the type of carry-overs and looking at the overall picture as to what are those effects. Is it because of the heated economy? Is it the marketplace? How much of the marketplace affects us? And is that marketplace, if it's as heated as it is, driving up the cost of all the projects? So those are a number of factors that we're looking at.

We're trying to look at making adjustments. For example, bringing in what we started last year and we'll continue to work on what we call banking days for the capital projects and looking at that scenario. As well, looking at how we can try and increase market participation in a number of our projects. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Thank you. What does the Minister mean by market participation, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we've noticed that on a lot of our projects in the Northwest Territories and our larger capital projects, we are at times receiving one bidder on a tender package. That can be some of the larger ones. Even in the city of Yellowknife, which is our largest community, we may get two bidders on some of our larger projects. That affects the way we can look at things. If we're going out for competition and finding there's little competition and there's one price, what do we do if it's, for example, twice the amount that was established in the budget? So we're having to look at that and see what we can do to try and encourage more potential companies to bid on our projects. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Madam Chair, I certainly understand that we run a number of complex projects and some of them can't be guaranteed or predicted with absolute certainty that they can be done, so it's fully understandable that there can and will be some carry-overs. But I guess an aspect that I wanted to ask about is that, you know, as the implementation of some of these goes ahead and indeed, you know, the Minister or the department finds that, for instance, there is very limited uptake on a call for bidders or the cost of something comes in extraordinarily high, well above anticipated costs, do we have a way of looking at things to see if they are indeed achievable or doable or do they still have the value that we originally predicted? Are we routinely and regularly going through these carry-over projects to see whether or not they're, in effect, worth continuing given all these circumstances? Do we have a way of just taking some of them out of the mix because they don't meet our original expectations, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the process we have in place does allow for the review of the capital projects. For example, as we have recently gone through our budget process and approving the capital program that was established or the capital acquisition program that was established as part of our budget process there, when a project goes out and is tendered and prices have come in higher than anticipated, the department would have to come back to get more money or, for example, change the scope of work. So that would reduce the project itself. We would have to weigh that as to a number of the issues that are out there. One, can we delay the project a year to try to deal with the matter or look at more funds? Is it a safety issue where we would have to proceed? Those factors would come in working with departments.

As I stated earlier, the area we're working on further to that is the banking days where that process is looked at more often and trying to look at the scope of work. Is the project absolutely necessary in this fiscal year? So those things are looked at and then it would be brought back to the Cabinet table.

Any work we're doing we would also work with committees if we're going to change any of the processes. One of the things we're looking at as we prepare for the

next budget cycle is to look at the capital program, what we will need to do to make potentially any changes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Madam Chair, another aspect of the volume of projects being carried over is that the expectation was that these would be completed within a given fiscal year and a time frame. We have already, of course, passed the budget for 2007-2008 and the hundred more projects, new initiatives that we want to get done this year. But yet we find ourselves dealing with many, many projects unfinished from the previous year. So a concern here, Madam Chair, is that our capacity to handle our own new work, let alone the stuff that's unfinished from previous years, is going to even more compound our capacity issues. So we continue in this Legislative Assembly to consider and approve the work that the departments ask us to sign off on, but I'm looking more and more carefully and cautiously at the volume of work that we expect our workforce, our civil service, to achieve when we have this growing problem of uncompleted work that has to be picked up from the previous year.

So I wanted to put that concern on the record, Madam Chair, that we also have to look at our own capacity to manage this and if the process, for whatever reason, is starting to get out of hand, then we really do need to look very carefully at what kind of controls or curbs we can put into this so we don't in effect collapse our system, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, it is, as we stated, a concern and the issue of capacity is a big one. As we're seeing potentially, we feel that as part of the impact on the competition side. Over the North overall is there capacity to do these projects in all of our communities in the time we have set out? If you look at the request for carry-overs plus the 2007-2008 budget we've just passed, the capital program we have sitting out there now is just under $250 million. That's a significant amount of work that would be required in a year, so one of the exercises that we go through in the banking days process is looking at that capacity within departments, as well as what we're seeing out in the marketplace. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next for general comments I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a few opening comments or general comments on Supplementary Appropriation, No. 1 that's before us today. I won't ask any questions, I'll wait for the detail, but I just wanted to highlight a few areas of concern for me and it's nothing new; it won't come as anything new to the Minister. He's heard me say it many times before. I think some of the Ministers are paying attention over there. So, position growth in the public service. Again, in this supplementary appropriation there are new positions. There's positions that are being refunded. There's two with MACA, the resource impact development advisors, $291,000. There's a number of areas that nobody's come back to this House and shown us the performance or these positions, which I questioned two years ago, we're not closer to a pipeline today, Madam Chair, than we were two years ago. Arguably a little bit closer, yes, Mr. Minister of ITI, but here we are, we still don't have a pipeline, we still don't have resource development, and we're going to fund these positions again. It was a question two years ago when they were supposed to sunset. I see there's $291,000 in here to keep those positions. What have they done for the last two years, those positions? I'd really like to know that and I think the Minister should supply that information to the House, and the Department of MACA should supply that to the House.

Another, aside from the position growth, real area of concern for me is how we're managing our health care facilities in the Beau-Del, Stanton, and now I hear rumblings that there's some trouble with the Sahtu as well, with the board there, and deficits. Last year we approved through supplementary appropriations a bail-out for Stanton; and we're not talking $50,000, $100,000, we're talking somewhere in the magnitude of 10 to 15 million, when all is said and done, Madam Chair. It's not a small matter. We don't have any plan to address how these health facilities are run. I'm not sure, and I've been left, you know, unaware of what exactly is happening. Are we chronically underfunding our hospitals and health boards which is forcing them into running deficits like they are and coming back here and us having to bail them out? Is it mismanagement? Is it the department not paying attention? Who ultimately, Madam Chair -- and I'd like to ask the Minister when I get a chance through the detail -- who ultimately is responsible for this mess? And it is a mess. If the department comes back to this House with a deficit recovery plan, the people who are going to be paying the price are the patients and the residents here in the Northwest Territories. To me, Madam Chair, that's just not fair. It's not fair. Not fair to the people we represent. They shouldn't have to deal with deficit recovery plans and cutbacks and things of that nature when deficit recovery plans are entered into. It's something that I really, you know, and the more I see of it, the more it bothers me. I'm not sure if we need to maybe take a look, a more macro look at how we're running our health authorities. Maybe we don't need all the boards we have. Maybe we need one board with a member from each region in the Northwest Territories to function as one health board. Maybe the time has come where we should seriously take a look at the money we're spending and, in effect, if we could administer our health system, we've only got 42,000 people. Why do we need all the health boards? Why can't we do it with one board? I think that's a question, Madam Chair, that I think we'll have to deal with. Maybe the next Assembly will have to deal with that question. But it's one we should ask ourselves.

I think I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair. I again thank you for allowing me some general comments. I look forward to the discussion that will be coming up. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As we've heard numerous times in this House the concern about position growth. Within FMB one of things that we send back to departments as we begin any budget preparation is growth and positions would be looked in a serious manner. We then deal with the request being brought before us.

Health care facilities and boards are a challenge. We have provided information to committee members. The deficits aren't always climbing; there are fluctuations. We have some health boards in a surplus situation. Some are right on the line. From time to time, there are some that are in a deficit position. We have begun to work with FMBS and the Department of Health and Social Services. For example, Stanton has developed a terms of reference for base to review funding. That will help us look at if there are some underfunding situations and deal with them in that manner. That baseline review process has now been established. The terms of reference has been set up. We are going to use that as well for every health authority. Ultimately, the buck stops with the Minister. That is where it stops. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on the list for general comments, I have Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I just would like to make a brief general comment. My question can be at a later point when we go in detailed discussion. I would just like to highlight the apprentices that were addressed here in the opening remarks. I think this is a step in the right direction. Although the number is small, we must also take a baby step working with the communities, identifying apprentices in the communities; just fill in the gaps to meet the needs of the community. We in the Northwest Territories are lacking a trades workforce. This way, we can certainly work with Public Works and also the Housing Corporation. I would like to see that even enhancing the program even further. That is a good start. I call it in my language a baby step.

Madam Chair, the next item that I would like to highlight is aboriginal language services. As you recall, I questioned that with the Department of Education just the other day, the importance of having our own curriculum in our region. There are other regions that may have developed a curriculum. But at the same time, we do speak a different language. We deal with the culture aspect differently than other regions. I am glad to see some money allocated in this specific area.

My next item is on the policing, the justice. It took hard work to get to this point of identifying two isolated communities having a police presence. With the police presence, there will certainly be detachments, as well, down the road. This has been a long time coming. I would like to also highlight that there are other small communities out there that are still calling on us to get their police detachments, RCMP presence, as we heard in Colville Lake just over the past couple of weeks. We must support those small communities as well, continue supporting them. This is a step in the right direction. We highlighted two communities. I would like to thank the Department of Justice, specifically the Minister for his hard work in identifying this. It is a huge step in the right direction. Mahsi, Madam Chair. Those are my general comments.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Those were comments, not questions. Next for general comments is Ms. Lee.