Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by saying that I’ve been listening closely to the remarks that have been made by the Ministers and there was considerable material that I agree with and support, but I want to note in most general initial comments here that I recognize the international economic considerations and to some extent the decisions of this government have placed us in a position where I recognize the need to support the government’s fiscal strategy that sees us through these times of uncertainty. I stress that we have a combination here of the international sort of globalized factors such as the recession and some of the decisions of this government that have placed us in a vulnerable financial position. Thus with those there is a need to be somewhat cautious. I support that approach.

I recognize that we’ve enjoyed considerable capital budgets in the last few years resulting largely from federal programs, such as the Building Canada Fund, the Economic Stimulation Fund and, of course, the Affordable Housing Initiative. I also recognize that we’ve made very good use of those funds. There have been some tune-ups to how we achieve our infrastructure and how we plan.

I saw a very interesting article that I will forward to the Minister of Public Works and Services, in Focus magazine, about large infrastructure projects and some of the phenomena that are associated with that in jurisdictions throughout the world, many of which are reflected in our own jurisdiction. I see some progressive progress on that in terms of delivering our infrastructure.

I also want to recognize the internal energy efficiencies and move towards renewable energy and new initiatives in that direction, and some of the savings that we’re making. I think we’re doing a good job there. I think we’re becoming a leader on that in Canada. I want to recognize that and stress that there is a need now. What used to be considered thinking outside the box is no longer, so we need to redefine that box and start thinking outside of the box again.

One of the ways to do that, of course, is specifically with full-cost accounting. We’re still looking at a conventional accounting approach. As a result, many of our efforts have stayed in the southern parts of the Territory, despite that fact that with a full-cost accounting approach there are huge opportunities for savings and moving further north. I think we have some projects in terms of using waste heat from fossil fuels, such as in the Inuvik project, that are getting quite far north and I’m happy to see that now. But many of the renewable

energy projects, I think the Tli Cho community of Behchoko is about as far north as we get and I see great opportunities for further gains there. Just by way of example, if we throw into the mix what the cost of building, expanding, maintaining, cleaning up after tank farms, the gains that could be made would become immediately obvious. That just does not seem to be part of the accounting yet. Hopefully it will be this year.

I also recognize that much of the work we do in infrastructure is really demonstrating the potential ways and in many cases the best ways of building infrastructure to our residents and our businesses. I think this is a very important step that we are taking in demonstrating these things, because it does provide a bit of a market for these. I hesitate to call them new technologies. They are not. They are old technologies that we are finally implementing. It does provide a platform for recognition by our residents and I see some uptake by our residents and businesses. That is to be commended.

I think most of my other comments are departmental specific. I did want to perhaps recognize a couple of things that perhaps we had some discussions on already, but one of them is the need to, when we have situations that are identical in two different communities where we are contemplating infrastructure and there is relatively little cost to choosing one community over another and that perhaps a preferred community is economically deprived relative to the other often as a result of whether or not they have had infrastructure projects, that should be part of the decision-making. I think there is a tendency for Ministers to take that to an extreme and think that we are suggesting that be a major factor in governing those decisions. That is not true. I think I am suggesting, and others, that it be a consideration. I am hoping that will start the... We have raised the point before, others and myself, that when we put in large infrastructure, we need to be sure that O and M dollars are clearly identified and part of the budget so we don’t have really financial awkwardness in dealing with that situation. If we don’t plan for it, it can cause unneeded kerfuffles. I just wanted to, again, profile that little piece.

When we get into Education and perhaps Public Works and Services, I don’t doubt we will hear about the need to address some of the schools, the deferred maintenance on schools, and I think we let some things slide there. I would like to see a comprehensive approach with that.

Finally, the evaluation of the capital formula funding for community governments, I think that has been unchanged. Members have in the past and again this time around, I am sure, such as myself, will be raising the need to have a look at that and

recognize that economics have changed since we established that fund, $20 million or whatever it is.

Mr. Chair, thank you very much. I will leave it at that.