Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know there will continue to be a number of empty positions out there. My issue is: are we trying to make sure that those 118 people will be provided not just the first opportunity but the real opportunity, in the context of “We've got empty positions — can we get them into those?” to make sure they can have some stable transition?

The issue, furthermore, goes beyond that. We have a number of these people potentially affected, the 118 people, who could go off to retirement. I want to make sure today; I want to hear about those types of numbers and situations. Are we working with them to make sure they can retire, meet their superannuation requirements, so that the impact ultimately boils down even smaller? I want to make sure we're getting to that. That’s the impact I’m talking about.

We’ve had the opportunity to meet with the 118 potentially affected employees. Through the Staff Retention policy there are a number of options. One is education assistance, separation assistance or severance priority.

With regard to early retirement or potential retirement, that is, I guess, a decision that would have to be requested by the potentially affected employee. We’re prepared to look into that, and we're waiting for direction from the Members as well.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The time for question period has expired. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to go back to item 7, please.

The Member is seeking unanimous consent to return to item 7, oral questions. Are there any nays?

We have a nay. Item 8, written questions. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to the opening address. Item 11, replies to the Budget Address, day 2 of 7. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to seek unanimous consent to go back to item 7, oral questions.

The Member is seeking unanimous consent to return to item 7, oral questions.

Unanimous consent granted.

The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Premier. In light of consensus government motions that have passed unanimously in this House, and also items and issues that Members raised in committees and in the process that we have to have inclusion of all Members of this House when a budget’s being developed....

In light of what we see here, I’d like to ask the Premier exactly how he sees motions being passed in this Legislative Assembly about matters which are brought before a Minister to deal with an item which is critical to their constituents — to be able to work with all Members of this House, to be able to develop something that’s universal for all communities in the Northwest Territories and not just a few.

I’d like to ask the Minister exactly how seriously his Cabinet takes motions passed in this Legislative Assembly on matters that are basically unanimously supported by Members in this House.

Thank you, Mr.

Krutko. The

honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Motions that are passed in this House unanimously, or obviously any motions in this House, are paid attention to as we do our review. Those that are specifically directed at departments, when they start their business plan process, are taken into consideration. We also have to look at the long list of backlogged capital items or O&M requests that we’ve not been able to fund, and that gets part of the discussion embedded as we prepare for that. I think in this situation there’s been a commitment to move with one of those projects the Member spoke specifically about: a motion moved for the Aklavik and Tuk access roads.

As well, the Minister of Transportation has committed through the Building Canada Fund portion on development and review — research, I believe — to take some of those funds and do the work that’s needed for the department to see if this project can move along the track of going through this process.

I must also say the Building Canada Fund.... The list the Member talks about has been shared with committee, shared with the federal government, but is still under review by the federal government. It’s not our final list. We have to keep that in mind.

As we know, this government has just restructured itself to have ministerial committees look at the different initiatives that the government wants to move on. Yet there seems to be a missing link there by way of inclusion of Members on this side of the House. I’d like to ask the Premier.... I know it’s been suggested or recommended to find a system and that we try to get unanimous endorsement of those initiatives by all Members of the House before we submit anything to the federal government. Is the Premier open to revisiting that and finding the system that works for all 19 Members of the Legislative Assembly?

I think the scientists are still looking for the missing link. The fact is, as we progress in our work, there is a process established. We are at one level in the sense of the first filter. Then we go to committee and put that on the table, and we react to the recommendations. There have been times when we’ve changed what we’ve presented based on committee recommendations and information. We’ll continue to do that.

This process, this Building Canada Fund, worked out of a number of other initiatives, and we’re still trying to get the final piece of that in place. Again we’re being told by the federal government that we can’t bank on that piece until we get the funding agreement signed. It’s the first year of seven years. So this other project, as committed to by the Minister of Transportation through the research and development portion of that Building Canada Fund, will be looking at that access road, and it can work its way through our business plan process.

We as the 16th Assembly have set a

list of priorities that we’d like to achieve. There seems to be some misinterpretation of how we see it as Ordinary Members. When you talk about building capacity or trying to reduce the cost of living, I think people have different opinions on it. I think it’s appropriate that all Members have a choice to voice their opinions. When we look at these projects, where we have access to some $270 million of federal funds, where we can really make a difference to the Northwest Territories, it’s awfully hard for Members to try to illustrate what we mean by reducing the cost of living in communities.

Every one of us lives in different types of communities. We all have unique ideas that I think have to be looked at.

I’d like to ask the Minister that before we take that next step of looking at the business planning process going forward or whatnot, we have a system in place, have a caucus or have a meeting, so that we really explain what we meant as Members of the 16th Assembly in setting our

priorities and going forward. Will the Premier consider that in light of the problem we seem to have today?

Mr. Speaker, as I have committed to, as we begin our normal business planning process, that input, that back and forth is going to happen. It needs to happen as we proceed. We’ll present that, hear back, and go back and forth on that as we get back into our normal cycle. Not a first-year budget after an election. We’re ready to sit down on that basis.

As well, I’ve sat down with the Ministers to say that we need to get the committees on these initiatives. When the Building Canada Fund package was brought forward, recommendations were made. We looked at some of those changes, and we reacted to some of those as well.

We’re ready to sit down and go through that and make some changes, but as we all know around this table, even sitting together as 19 Members, rarely do we get 19 Members agreeing with everything. That’s something we also have to take into consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to our priorities and where we all come from, being here for 13 years, I think we have to improve our consultation, our dialogue, realizing that we all represent people in the Northwest Territories, regardless of where we’re from or what role we play. It’s important, as government, that we find ways to improve that.

The reason that I raised the issue with regard to our priorities is, you know, when you talk about safer communities, for me the basic thing for communities is they want to have policing and nursing and things like that and ensure they have security. When we talk about chipsealing a highway to make communities safer, I find a problem with that. We have to ensure that those priorities are really what we mean when we set our priorities.

Again, is there a chance that we’ll have to illustrate our priorities, but also make sure that maybe we have a better definition of how those priorities were set and what we really meant? Can the Premier consider looking at exactly how these reasons have come about and also at what we mean, or define what we mean?

Mr. Speaker, when we prepare our business plans and go to committees to get responses back — recommendations, input on how it’s being put together — in the end, when we sit down, Ministers, specifically, will have to explain the priorities and the criteria set. We’re continuing down that road in the sense of making sure they’re prepared and have the information and justification as to what happened.

The example the Member has used on chipsealing Highway No. 5, that’s not part of the Building Canada Fund; that’s a different fund that’s been in place for quite a number of years and was also in partnership with the federal government.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, I listened quite closely to the Premier’s Budget Address yesterday and questioned him a little bit earlier today on the Deh Cho Bridge project. I’m wondering, and I think the public is wondering, as well, why the single largest piece of public infrastructure built here in the Northwest Territories didn’t get one iota of a mention in his Budget Address. Perhaps the Premier can offer an explanation to me and to the public on why that omission was made.

The Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.