Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister what would happen if the engineer’s report were to come back that the building was structurally sound. Would that be an opportunity to still use it as a young female offenders' facility?

Mr. Speaker, if the report comes out stating that the building still could be utilized for a number of years, then we can certainly utilize the building, whether it be for program delivery.... We are looking at options for that particular building, and we are going through some stages here. What we propose here is part of the Arctic Tern plans, but there are other options that may be fully utilized in that facility.

Mr. Speaker, the facility was built at a cost of around $14 million, I understand. It’s six years old and was built to house young female offenders. We have people that believed us when we said, “Go get training and we’ll employ you.” So they’ve done that. Moving them around the territory is not an option. These are people who were born and raised around there, so they would obviously like to stay. I would like to ask the Minister if this proposed closure of Arctic Tern is dependent on this budget being passed.

Mr. Speaker, one of the proposals is the reduction in the Arctic Tern facility. Not only that, but the cost for us to operate the facility, with the way it’s been operating with the number of inmates in there and the number of staff.... It’s just the feasibility of the operations. So that’s what our department’s been tackling.

Final supplementary, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s answers. I would like to ask the Minister if his department is aware of any potential changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act of Canada, which would justify, probably, keeping the facility to be used as it’s being used now.

Mr. Speaker, when I met with the federal minister and the provincial ministers last fall in Winnipeg, one of the discussions was potential changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act. They are seeking our input, from all jurisdictions, and I do believe that review of the input will be starting this summer, late fall. It could change. There are a lot of concerns in that area, so we’ll certainly provide our input to deal with those issues.

The Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Given that our estimate of operating surplus at $44 million has risen now to $69 million — that’s a $25 million difference — and we’ve firmed up the Building Canada Fund…. I think we’re $12 million to $15 million this year and then $35 million per year. Given that our intent, laid out before that, was to have a net savings of $30 million a year, considerably less than the sum of these, do these affect the budget? Do these affect the perspectives? Is there a little more opportunity for doing things a little differently?

I understood the Premier’s statement. We need to do things based on certainty. We can’t just assume there will be incomes and whatnot. But now here we have proven income with the $25 million from the surplus, $35 million from the Building Canada Fund, and part of that this year. Our net need is for a $60 million drop over two years, and this is one year. Is there some room for moving there?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Mr. Speaker, the end cash position of the government is one consideration of moving forward. It gives us a starting point for the upcoming budget planning cycle. What we have in this situation is that we also recognize some of those bump-ups that end up making our surplus position look a little healthier. It’s a one-time fund. They are not ongoing funds, and that’s the problem we’re going to have to tackle as we go forward.

The Building Canada Fund may be a one-time fund, but we know it’s a one-time fund for seven years. We have a pretty clear record of establishing surpluses greater than $19 million over what was estimated every year for the past number of years. This year we’ve surpassed that yet again. So I don’t think these can be categorized as one-time situations. Looking at our estimated revenues last year, it was about $60 million or $70 million less than turned out to be the case. We’re at the same estimate for the Mains this year.

Mr. Speaker, the one-time funds I speak of are those adjustments that happened from past corrections to transfers from the federal government. Those are one-time. The Building Canada Fund is cost-shared dollars, and it’s for capital only. There are no O&M dollars attached to that, so that’s something we can’t plan on — making increased expenditures to O&M that will continue to grow with forced growth on an annual basis.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that the last government — and this is the issue…. You’re

looking at the history of the government, where we’ve had to account for one-time funds in the year we receive them, but they really are three-year funds. For example, the Affordable Housing Trust: $50 million spread over three years. So those are accounted for in the year they’re allocated.

We have a number of other issues that are about to impact us in ’09–10. The Territorial Health Access Fund is due to run out in ’09–10. We have housing transfers from the federal government that are on a steady decline until 2033. As well, we have existing problems within our health authorities around some budgeting issues that we need to be prepared to deal with, and if we don’t take the opportunity while we have some flexibility, we will lose that all in years to come.

We recognize there are things that we have to bank on, and bank on, on a basis that will allow us to proceed. If we continue to go down the path we are, where revenue’s going — and I would refer to B3 in the actual Budget Address document…. If we don’t make any changes, we will see big problems in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The time for question period has expired. However, a lot of Members have supplementary questions. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for those comments, Mr. Minister. I don’t really disagree with any of them, except that I wouldn’t throw out history like that. I think we need to make use of the information we’ve got in the past.

I’d also like to point out we’ve done things in a rush here. We’ve got to get in gear. I disagree that we have to rush things, given that we have this $25 million unexpected surplus, which is about what we had anticipated in the reductions this year. So I don’t quite see the hurry that the Premier’s in.

No question there, Mr. Bromley. My number says it’s not time to make statements; it’s time to ask questions. Item 8, written questions. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.

Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, replies to Budget Address, day three of seven. Item 12, petitions. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Speaker, the petition I would like to table contains 1,282 signatures of residents from across the Northwest Territories. The petition asks that Members of the Legislative Assembly vote “no” to any budget proposal that contains such reductions.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to

present a petition dealing with the matter of regional position reductions in the sports, recreation and youth area. The petition contains 37 signatures of young people from the Deh Cho region. The petitioners request that the Members of the Legislative Assembly reconsider proposed regional positions and reduction to the sports, recreation and youth area.

Mr.

Speaker, I would like to

present a petition dealing with the matter of Fort Simpson Airport maintenance services. Mr. Speaker, the petition contains 309 signatures of Nahendeh residents. The petitioners request that the Legislative Assembly represent Nahendeh residents by opposing plans to privatize Fort Simpson Airport maintenance services.

I would like to present a petition dealing with the matter of cutbacks to public services in Fort Simpson. Mr. Speaker, the petition contains 276 signatures of Nahendeh residents. And, the petitioners request that the Legislative Assembly represent Nahendeh residents by opposing proposed layoffs in the public service that would have an economic and social impact in Fort Simpson and surrounding communities.

Item 13, reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to read for the record today the report of the review of the 2008–2009 Draft Main Estimates from the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning.

Introduction

The Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning is pleased to present its Report on the Review of the 2008–2009 Draft Main Estimates, which took place between March 31 and April 11, 2008.

The committee’s mandate includes the overview of the budget and fiscal framework. This report therefore focuses on government-wide implications of the proposed Main Estimates. Specific comments on individual departments are provided in the reports of the Standing Committees on Economic Development and Infrastructure, Government Operations and Social Programs, in accordance with their respective mandates.

General Comments

Shortly after the fall 2007 election, all Members of the 16th Assembly undertook a strategic planning

process, which resulted in the vision, goals and priorities document Northerners Working Together. The enthusiasm with which Regular Members embarked on this process has been dampened by a series of poor communications and unilateral decisions on the part of the Cabinet culminating in this very disappointing budget in which we have had minimal input.

Reductions

The committee understood that some reductions would be necessary in order for government to make new investments in our strategic priorities while continuing to live within our means. To assist with identifying reduction measures, the committee undertook its own brainstorming sessions and produced a list of suggestions, which it provided to the government for its consideration on March 5, 2008. The list was based on our own thoughts and experiences as well as many straightforward, common-sense ideas contributed to us by our constituents and public service employees.

While the committee acknowledged that many of the suggested measures would require detailed analysis and costing and could not be implemented for this budget, certainly some of them could have been put in place immediately. The committee finds it ironic that while the government has put off our ideas in order to allow for more review, they have proceeded with reductions in the budget with apparently minimal analysis of alternatives and impacts.

Generally, the committee is concerned that some of the proposed reductions are inconsistent with our caucus priorities and that overall the government has placed too much emphasis on reducing positions rather than reducing expenditures by changing how the government conducts its day-to-day business. The committee was especially concerned that during the Draft Main Estimates review process, some departments were unable to provide complete information about the full impact of position reductions, such as severance costs and contracting fees that will be associated with the privatization of some services.

Although the committee is pleased to see the 5 per cent across-the-board reduction to travel and materials and supplies budgets, we believe the reduction to travel expenses could have been increased to 10 per cent by restricting southern travel to the absolutely essential and putting other cost-saving practices in place.

The committee is also extremely disappointed that no revenue generation measures were included in this budget to offset some of the need for reductions. While the cost of living is already very high in the Northwest Territories and the government must avoid exacerbating this, the committee believes that there are opportunities to increase revenues and that government’s failure to bring forward any options is a major oversight.

Strategic Investments

The committee has difficulty supporting additional spending in the form of strategic reinvestments while the reduction exercise is only partially complete and we have not yet seen proposals for increasing revenues. Without the full fiscal picture, including possible revenue increases, the committee is unable to assess the affordability of the proposed reinvestments.

The committee is also concerned that some of the proposed reinvestments are not related to our caucus priorities. Although the committee believes that some of the proposed reinvestments are good ones, they should have been deferred until they could be considered in the context of business plans and a coherent strategy for our term as the 16th Assembly. Moreover, the government failed to

propose any investment in some caucus priority

areas; for example, support for a healthy and sustainable voluntary and not-for-profit sector.

This budget also fails to demonstrate a commitment to develop a coherent, government-wide approach to address the caucus priority of mitigating climate change. The few investments intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are piecemeal and far outweighed by the forced growth and other costs that are directly, or indirectly, attributable to the use of oil.

The committee is not persuaded of the need for the proposed $610,000 in strategic investments tied to the Mackenzie Gas Project, which was not one of our caucus priorities. Further investments on top of the already substantial resources allocated to this project are not appropriate at this time, given the recent announcement by the Government of Canada that socio-economic funding will not be available this year as previously expected, and the estimated completion date for the joint review panel’s report, which is now delayed to mid-2009.

The committee is also unconvinced that the $1.5 million dollar infrastructure investment in parks renewal, particularly the amount allocated for signage and displays, is a priority at this time given the reductions across government.

Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations Function

This budget includes substantial changes to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations. The committee believes it is time for the government to review the mandate and activities of this department and reintegrate it into the Department of the Executive. This would save on administrative costs, ensure investments are made in areas where they will be most effective, and provide for direct oversight by the Premier of this critical area.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes the report of the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning on the review of the ’08–09 Draft Main Estimates.

Therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that Committee Report 4-16(2) be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Motion carried; Committee Report 4-16(2)

received and referred to Committee of the Whole for consideration.