Thank you, Mr.

Chair. This has

become a recurring theme. Many of the points I’m going to make have already been mentioned, but as I stated to one of the other Ministers earlier this week, they’re important to me, so I’m going to mention them. I did want to start off as well by thanking the Minister and his officials for the approach they took and the clear and concise way in which they communicated to the committee the rationale they’d used for making these reductions. I found the briefing to be one of the best I’ve observed, and it was refreshing.

In no particular order, I am also concerned about the amount of money we’re spending on our youth. It’s a major priority in our goals and objectives. I don’t know that it’s necessarily MACA’s fault, but in

terms of the government as a whole, I don’t think we have in this budget put enough emphasis on contributions toward youth programming, coordinators, facilities and so on. I think it’s something we need to consider, particularly in the next budget. I’m okay with the way things are here, but we certainly can’t reduce funding or facilities or staffing in terms of youth and youth programming any more than we already have.

I also am against the elimination of the emergency planning coordinator positions. I mentioned it in the House in a statement at least once. I feel that position provides a lot of support to communities whenever a disaster occurs. With communities taking on a lot of new responsibilities under the New Deal, which I do support, I think it is incumbent on the government and on MACA to make sure communities are not being stretched beyond their human capacity. We can’t rip out the supports the communities have been using over the last two or three years all at once. I think MACA understands this, but the removal of this particular emergency planning coordinator, to me, is a bad move.

I think that support can’t be provided elsewhere, and it’s my understanding that there’s nobody else in the department who’s going to take over these activities. So I have a concern there. I must say I have been advised that the territorial planning coordinator will do it, but I’m not so sure that position will have the hands-on back and forth with communities that the planning coordinator does.

The School of Community Government has been reduced to a certain extent. I appreciate the explanation that the department is going to focus the school on high-priority programming and eliminate some of the programs that can be accessed elsewhere. I commend them for that approach, but I think we have to be extremely careful about reducing the programming of the School of Community Government too far. The northern communities rely on the School of Community Government to train their officials. We have to remember that. We have to make sure the programs the School of Community Government is offering are programs our local governments need and want. I would caution the department not to reduce the School of Community Government. If you’re going to do it, do it very carefully.

I also have to speak very strongly against the loss of funding for the voluntary sector initiative. It was a paltry $10,000 as a strategic initiative, and that $10,000 is now no longer there. It’s only a piece of the unfortunate demise of Volunteer NWT. I think that organization is one that lost support from not only MACA but the whole government. There were other avenues where the several departments could have gotten together and made volunteers an important element. I’m done.