Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also thank the Finance Minister for his budget. My comments are quite general. I will get into specifics when we get into departments.

In a general sense I’m okay with the proposed budget. I see it as a caretaker budget. I don’t see very little, actually, that’s different from the budget that we’re currently in this 2010-2011 budget year. I don’t see 2011-2012 as being much different. It’s staying the course, as the Minister has often said to us. I agree with that, but I only agree with it from a fiscal perspective.

The economy in Canada and the world is uncertain. I think the NWT is doing okay but I believe we are right to be cautious. There’s no way that I consider our economy to be booming, so we really ought to take things slowly.

Operationally I don’t agree that we should be staying the course and that’s what I see in this budget. When it comes to expanding the provision of programs and services for our residents, I feel that this government still doesn’t get it, particularly that we’re now in the last eight months of a four-year term. There’s very little that is going to be new and exciting and try to attack some of the problems that we see. I feel that our lives, our work, our thinking doesn’t and shouldn’t stop just because we have an election coming in eight months’ time. We can accomplish a huge amount in eight months if we accept that we are here to work until the Assembly is dissolved at the end of August. I am getting a huge sense that people are not thinking that we’re here to work for the next eight months. I don’t see that mindset and I don’t hear it in the conversations that I have with people.

Over the last three years Members have pointed out innumerable concerns that their constituents have encountered. I’ve heard some, every Member on this side of the House has heard some. I’m sure that Ministers have heard the same sorts of problems. People have difficulty accessing programs and services because of policies which are inhibiting or obstructing them; because of policies which are conflicting. The government creates barriers to services that our constituents need to access. I don’t think we do it willingly, but

over time we put policies in place which conflict with each other, we get narrower and narrower in our policies, and it creates huge difficulties for our residents when they try to access our programs and services. Housing and Health and Social Services are probably two of the worst, but every department has it within this organization. I don’t see that we are addressing these basic issues, the issues and difficulties of accessing services. We’re not addressing that in a comprehensive way. I appreciate that Housing is going to be doing a comprehensive review of their policies. I think that’s great and I think it’s long overdue. It’s not going to be of any value unless we coordinate that with a review of other policies that also impact our residents. Income support is one, for instance. Housing and income support are two areas where residents are constantly in difficulty and constantly coming up against barriers and roadblocks.

I mentioned in my Member’s statement that we still have the silo mentality in our departments and amongst our staff. I’m speaking in generalities. I’m not speaking of specific people or departments, but in a general sense I think we still tend to think in silos. There’s some crossover between departments, absolutely. The Strategic Initiatives I think were set up to try and do that but I don’t think it really worked, because when push comes to shove and a department is facing a reduction in dollars or a loss of a program, that department gets really protectionist. They close their ranks and they do everything they can to either hang onto that money or that program. That’s where I think the silo mentality is really evident. It doesn’t matter whether or not it’s in the best interest of the government or the NWT as a whole if that program is lost; the department fights like crazy to keep it.

I mentioned in my Member’s statement there’s no new revenue in this budget. I believe that’s a mistake. A new tax may not seem the right thing to bring in when considering our current economic climate but I think we could and should be a little more open minded and far-seeing. I think we could have enabled our municipalities who, through a resolution at the NWT Association of Communities AGM last year, asked the government to give them the authority to levy a hotel tax in their communities. We didn’t do that. The Minister’s roundtable on revenue options as well supported this idea and I think, from what I read, they accepted it as a viable option and they recommended it. So I think we could have been proactive and creative. I think we could have considered giving the authority to our municipalities to enable them to charge this tax. I see it as a really positive step. It would generate revenue for economic development locally and it would generate revenue for tourism locally. That to me is revenue that would not then have to come from

GNWT. It would reduce the drain on our GNWT budget.

I’m really pleased to hear that the Minister is moving forward on establishing the Heritage Fund. I think that’s absolutely the right way to go. The sooner that we can set it up the better. But I also believe, and I don’t think the Minister spoke to this, but I believe that as soon as that fund is set up, we should start making deposits. They may only be token deposits, but I think they need to be made. The reason why I think that is, it will indicate support of the principle and philosophy of saving and planning to our residents. They will see that we are doing something concrete for the future.

I continue to support the government focus on energy initiatives, although I have real concerns about the Taltson project. It was mentioned earlier and I have the same concerns. I’m somewhat dismayed that the Minister stated that it’s still a priority for this government. I was pleased to hear in the second part of that paragraph that he talked about a business case for the project and I really believe that we don’t have a business case right now. So we better not be putting any more money in there.

I do think one of the better things that we’ve done is the energy retrofits of government assets and public housing. I think that’s been a very positive step and I think it’s going to reap rewards in the future. I also believe that this program needs to be extended to all NWT residents, particularly low-income and middle-income homeowners. They don’t currently have any incentive now to really do home renovations in terms of energy savings and if we can provide significant financial incentives to those people, it will get them to do home renovation projects and I think those home renovation projects will actually get done. If they do, it improves the quality of life for our residents, decreases their cost of living, and I believe it provides opportunities in the communities for economic development and for skill development.

So I stated earlier today that I believe that the government and its legislators -- that means us -- have to make fundamental and systemic changes to the way we deliver programs and services. I think we have to stop working from top down and start working bottom up. We have to provide communities with supports -- financial, human, physical -- and by doing so we will empower our communities, we’ll empower our residents to do what they do best, and that’s to look after each other.

I’d like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to make opening comments, and certainly when we get to individual departments I will have lots of specific questions.