Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to all who offered their comments and perspectives here.

Mr. Speaker, this Assembly did come out with some understanding and Cabinet developed a direction on that basis. Personally, I know many of my colleagues think that Cabinet has done a very good job in bringing many aspects of this budget forward, but they are not infallible and Members on this side of the House are moved to influence about half a percent of the budget. If some of this is an increase, so be it, but I assure the Minister and all that we’re not proposing this lightly and we do regard this as a perspective that will give us returns and that we cannot afford to not do.

We hear about how the bridge will be paying down its debt this fall and so we can be writing things off the books there. We’ve negotiated a higher debt limit. Obviously, these things will all help and provide some opportunity. Basically we are convinced that our recommendations are fiscally responsible and, indeed, more so than burying our heads in the sand on this issue and opportunity this fiscal year.

We want a renewed plan. Yes, we’re looking forward to that and we’re looking forward to working with the Minister in developing that, but we also have plans in place that need dollars now. We have many plans, a Biomass Plan and so on. The Minister mentioned several of them and we cannot abandon these.

This is not a surprise. We have said this consistently and recently to the Minister, and the Minister was open to responding if we were to come forward with one voice, and we’re doing that.

I want to just address some of the comments I’ve heard as well, comments like this is an environmental initiative that doesn’t make sense and so on, there’s no return on an investment. Earlier we have discussed the revolving fund, the Capital Asset and Revolving Fund, which is a

government fund established to collect and reinvest savings from renewable energy initiatives, energy efficiency initiatives that this government has done. A tip of the hat to the government for that. Just about, as I said, essentially every project we’ve undertaken has indeed saved us money as well as provided many other benefits. So the sorts of comments that came out, that there are no benefits here are completely off base, and I think the evidence is clear that these are beneficial projects. Again, it’s unaffordable not to address these issues.

On the point that a couple of people have made that we have made mistakes, I think there’s no question about that. That’s part of doing business and it’s our job to bring those to the forefront and I think we’ve done a good job of that, but we also want to learn from our mistakes and move forward based on that new knowledge.

The Taltson project itself, I agree, we were off base on the general direction we were taking, but we really did do a lot of productive work and we need to make use of that work and put that into operation, and that’s exactly what this motion is meant to do, is provide the resources for that.

This motion is indeed about the cost of living. It can be portrayed as an environmental initiative and so on and there are certain environmental benefits that accrue from that, but there are many others: the cost of living, economic stimulation and so on. I believe the public, as some people have mentioned, some of my colleagues have mentioned, there’s a public expectation of leadership here and this motion is meant to respond to that expectation.

What some of my colleagues see as challenges, many of us see as opportunities and we want to move on those opportunities. The strategies for projects developed have been laid out, the Biomass Strategy, the Hydro Strategy, the Energy Plan, which is being renewed this year, Energy for the Future and so on. There are a lot of documents in place to allow this to go forward.

Power rates, as has been mentioned, will continue to soar if we maintain our current course. The projects to be completed are producing increasing dilemmas, and examples here in communities are certainly the Norman Wells and the Inuvik situation. We want to start addressing those in really sustainable ways on a bottom line basis.

A couple of my colleagues, at least, have mentioned in the North expenses are much higher. Let’s focus our initial efforts on where those costs are highest. Let’s put the focus on those communities. We do have a big income disparity, a big disparity in economic development in our communities. Let’s focus first on those communities that are at the low end of that range and that need the economic stimulation. I fully agree with those points and I thank my colleagues for raising them.

So we want new resources put into this, but we want to have input based on the lessons learned from the 16

th Assembly towards more effective

delivery of initiatives. It’s not so much the huge projects that I think we need as a methodical, knowledgeable and thoughtful building on the successes that we’ve had to date, and there are many.

I’d like to refer to Mr. Nadli’s vision on a renewable energy future. It’s something to shoot for. Let’s get a start on that.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll wrap it up on that and just request a recorded vote. Again, I thank my colleagues for speaking on this and my seconder, Mr. Blake, for his help. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The Member is seeking a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.

All those opposed, please stand.

All those abstaining, please stand.

Results of the recorded vote: yes, seven; no, two; seven abstentions.

---Carried

Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that notwithstanding Rule 4, when this House adjourns on May 31, 2012, it shall be adjourned until Monday June 4, 2012;

AND FURTHER, that any time prior to June 4, 2012, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with Executive Council and Members of the Legislative Assembly, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at a time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as it has been duly adjourned to that time.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Motion is on the floor. To the motion.

Question has been called.

---Carried

Item 19, first reading of bills. Item 20, second reading of bills. The honourable Minister of Justice, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. To the principal of the bill.

Question has been called. Bill 2, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2012, has had second reading and is referred to a committee.

---Carried

Item 21, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 2-17(3), Commissioner’s Opening Address: Creating the Conditions for Success; Tabled Document 3-17(3), Northwest Territories Main Estimates 2012-2013; and Bill 1, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act, with Ms. Bisaro in the chair. By the authority given to me as Speaker by Motion 2-17(3), I hereby authorize the House to sit beyond the daily hour of adjournment to consider business that we have before the House. Thank you.

Committee, we’ll come to order. We have three items for consideration. Tabled Document 2-17(3), Commissioner’s Opening Address: Creating the Conditions for Success; Tabled Document 3-17(3), Northwest Territories Main Estimates 2012-2013; and Bill 1, An Act to Amend the Student Financial

Assistance Act. What is the wish of committee? Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Committee wishes to resume consideration of Tabled Document 3-17(3), Northwest Territories Main Estimates 2012-2013, to continue on with Transportation, Environment and Natural Resources and, time permitting, Industry, Tourism and Investment.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Does committee agree?

We will resume after a short break.

---SHORT RECESS

Welcome back, committee. We are dealing with the Department of Transportation, page 11-21. Minister Ramsay, do you have witnesses you wish to bring into the House?

Yes, I do, Madam Chair.

Committee, do we agree to bring the witnesses into the House?