Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have some general comments with regard to the budget. I’ve got a number of them. I will start with the process which for me, second time around, was an awful lot better than the first time around. I don’t know whether that’s because it’s the second time I have gone through this process or it seemed to work better or whether it’s just because we used a different process. Certainly the first budget I experienced was a little unusual because it was immediately following the election. This one was different in that we went through business plans with standing committees and then went forward from there.

In general, I am pleased with the budget. I am particularly pleased that the Premier and Finance Minister made accommodations, some accommodations, not all but some accommodations after the department-by-department review of the business plans by standing committees. For me, personally, I can’t speak for anybody else but I certainly appreciated

the willingness on the part of Cabinet and the Premier to make accommodations to the recommendations that came from the various standing committees.

I am also appreciative of the flexibility that’s been shown by the Finance Minister, and I think it came from his budget address, to a flexibility to adjust the budget relative to our changing economic times and it’s changing downwards instead of upwards, unfortunately. But I mentioned in my Member’s statement the other day that to me, it’s extremely important that we remain flexible and adapt the budget as required for the economy as we move forward. The budget, to me, seems to recognize the recent downturn in our economy and I particularly am happy to see the emphasis on infrastructure that is in our budget.

The other thing I would like to say is there is a small deficit projected and I’m okay with that. I would not be okay with that as a matter of course, but I think in this particular budget year it’s something which I can live with. I would certainly caution the government not to try to project a deficit every year and I don’t think that’s what I heard the Finance Minister say the other day.

The other thing I would like to say is what I am appreciative of is the work on behalf of the government to minimize job cuts. There is a small number of people who have to look forward to losing their job in this budget year and for me that’s a very good thing.

The last thing, I guess, that’s positive is the statement by the Finance Minister relative to a heritage fund. I strongly support that move. I’m sorry that it’s not in the 2009-10 budget and if I understood the Minister correctly, the government is working towards that and I think if we don’t get it established in 2010-11, it’s probably not going to happen, but it’s something which I think all Members would be happy to see be established within the life of this government.

So now that I have given the Finance Minister my comments and my praise, I am going to extinguish his smile with a few criticisms.

I heard the other day…Sorry. Members heard the other day when I made my statement and also when I asked a few questions of the Finance Minister -- he wasn’t here but the Premier did answer -- I am dissatisfied that the recommendations from the Social Programs committee and the Priorities and Planning committee to establish a milk subsidy in this year’s budget was not accepted. You know, it’s well known the value of milk as a healthful food or as a valuable food, particularly for young children. The other thing I am particularly dismayed with is

although there may be something in the budget to adjust or address the cost of living in communities, I don’t think what is being proposed is going to be put into effect as fast as a milk subsidy could. It’s my belief that particularly in our small communities we need to reduce the cost of living and we need to reduce it now, not yesterday…Sorry, not today but yesterday. I don’t see that the proposed actions are going to be in place in the near future and I think a milk subsidy could have been put into place for the 1st of April.

I am particularly disappointed with Education, Culture and Employment’s proposal to withdraw the grant to Skills Canada. It’s a paltry amount of money in the grand scheme of things and if we are intent on providing an emphasis on trades and other programs particularly to young people and to women, this is one avenue that would allow us to do that. Skills Canada as an entity is expanding across the NWT. They are into more and more high schools all the time. The removal of this funding will simply remove one of their staff persons and will probably halt the expansion into our high schools. The fact that Skills go into our schools gives kids an opportunity to experience trades at a young age, other vocations as well, and it exposes them to many things that they probably wouldn’t get an opportunity to see or experience if Skills wasn’t there to help them out. So I would encourage ECE to find the money that’s necessary to put that grant back within their department.

I do have a problem with the amount of money we are spending to have a presence at the 2010 Olympics. I feel we should be there. The NWT should be there, but I think the funds which we’re expending are beyond what we should, particularly where we’ve got expenditures in an economy where there’s a downturn. These funds are coming from a community development trust fund and I feel that the fund would be far better used to assist our communities and development within communities than it would be to fund activities at the Olympics, which are a one-time affair. Once the Olympics are done there’s not much that’s going to carry through after those funds are expended.

I’m concerned about a reduction in funding for non-government organizations, to which it’s not a large amount of money but any reduction in funding to NGOs, in my estimation, is not a good thing. We should be increasing funding to NGOs and the other thing that we need to do is to set in place multi-year funding agreements for our NGOs. I think I hear that’s coming, but I haven’t seen evidence of it yet.

I think it’s vitally important that somehow this budget be amended or we go into a deficit to fund supplementary health benefits for the lower income end of our workforce. We have to provide the

benefits to those people who don’t have coverage right now. If it costs us a certain amount of money and if we have to go into a bit more of a deficit situation to do it, then so be it. That’s what we should do. That’s my belief.

I mentioned the other day, and I want to mention it again, that I think it’s important that we ensure that any infrastructure projects that we put in place early on in 2009 benefits the small communities in particular. I think they’re the ones that need the economic stimulus the most and I would encourage the government to make sure that it’s small communities that get the jobs and the projects early on.

The last area of concern for me is assistance for communities, particularly in relation to human resource community capacity. With the New Deal and different ways of doing things for communities I think that they are experiencing a lack of skilled people in their communities who can take on the jobs and the projects that the New Deal requires of communities. They’re given lump sums of money and are required to do project planning, monitoring of infrastructure projects, all sorts of things which previously were done for them by MACA. I think there’s a lack of manpower in MACA to assist them with the holes that they have in their human resource areas. I know MACA says that they help out, but I think unfortunately they’re not providing as much assistance as they should and I think they need to provide more hands-on assistance than they currently are. That’s all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.