Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would point out this is my third go-around in the Northwest Territories and we did three roundtables in Yellowknife last government where we brought people in. What has become clear to me – and it’s credit, I would suggest, both to having small communities and a small government – a lot of the concerns that I’ve heard going from community to community in the regional centres is very consistent with the concerns I’ve heard raised by the Members in this House. A lot of them focus on almost identical issues.

The people are very, for the most part, well informed who show up. They have issues they want to talk about and we take those concerns into consideration, the concerns about economic investment and critical infrastructure, more training

prevention, managing our money, don’t go into debt, but not too far. There is the issue to manage the cost of living. There are very, very consistent themes. They want to put more money into the social program areas, as I will lay out in the budget address tomorrow.

We are, as a legislature and government, responsive to nearly all those issues raised. We don’t have the resources maybe to address them all to the level people would like, but we do listen carefully.

I just want to once again comment on the link between what we hear in an MLA’s constituency from the people who are there and what we hear from the MLA, which I think reflects well on this process and the MLAs in this House. Thank you.

When I look at the document, as well as attending the meetings, there are very sound, practical recommendations that are made and they also come from this side of the House when we are looking at making investments into residents of the Northwest Territories and programs. I just want to know how after the business planning session that we had and getting reasons why we can’t get them in and the Minister stating that he’s hearing the same thing from the residents of the Northwest Territories.

I would like to ask him, I know he’s listening to our residents, but at what cost is it to the taxpayer going out across the Northwest Territories and still not being able to put some of these recommendations into the business planning or into our operational budget? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This round of budget consultation will be just a shade over $40,000. I would also submit to this House and to the Member that a lot of the suggestions that we get from the people out in the communities are not “just give us more money.” They have all sorts of good concerns. How we hire people, for example. The need to not create roadblocks in that hiring process, creeping credentials, lack of a really good equivalency, slow turnaround in how we respond to people. We, as well, have started the 2,000 people in five years initiative. A lot of the things we are talking about, people are talking about, as well, in terms of being responsive, recruiting our own students and doing a better job in a whole host of areas where we’re already spending a significant amount of money.

These are not futile, after the fact processes that have no bearing, but as we can show you budget to budget and as I will lay it out tomorrow, we have been listening very carefully over the years about how much money we put into social programs, the types of areas that work on prevention. All those things we have done our best to address and we are really prepared to make significant investments with the borrowing limit sorted out and addressing

the cost of living related to energy costs and other areas where we need to apply ourselves and make those critical investments. Thank you.

During the discussions, GNWT asked residents of the Northwest Territories, how can we manage our expenditures? Our operational budget has increased over the years to the tune of about one point six. We’ll be seeing and hearing tomorrow.

Some suggestions, back from the 2012 report, were how can we manage government expenditures better? One was duplication of programs, duplication between departments, or duplication between departments and non-government organizations.

Has any work or action been taken in this area to see how we could be more efficient in spending our dollars and even support non-government organizations who run programs on behalf of government? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Health and Social Services, for example, is engaged in a transformative exercise to address that very issue, looking at avoiding duplication, the back office improvements, efficiencies, and move away from multiple disconnected boards to a more efficient one-board model. So that’s one example.

As well, we know there’s an interest and there’s a recognition between departments on the infrastructure side, where departments are now collaborating on building infrastructure that we need in communities: garages, warehouses, those types of things. We’ve had discussions with Deline, for example, where there’s an interest in the community of Deline to build a community infrastructure that’s going to allow ENR, Housing, the municipal works, public works, to pool their money to build one energy-efficient, right-sized, integrated piece of infrastructure that will allow everybody to pool their money, so rather than five underfunded little pieces of infrastructure we have one good, solid, long-term, well-built, energy-efficient piece of infrastructure that’ll serve multiple community needs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With the operations budget as big as it is, questions out there are being asked whether or not this government can sustain such a high expenditure for operations. The Minister has been noted that we’re looking at trying to increase our debt ceiling.

If that doesn’t go through, can I ask the Minister, what is the plan of action should our debt ceiling not be increased? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the issues, if I may digress just for a second, one of the

big issues of great, great interest in Inuvik, of course, was the fibre optic line that is now under construction. That’s going to have a major impact on Inuvik and it’s an $80 million investment by the Government of the Northwest Territories that’s going to look at Inuvik as a major remote sensing site for satellite remote sensing and the fact that we’re going to tie in all the communities on the way down with fibre optic connections or microwave. So that is another big piece that came up and was discussed extensively in Inuvik.

In regards to managing the money, there are two things. We have to continue to practice fiscal discipline and diligence to make sure that our expenditures don’t exceed our revenues. If we are unsuccessful and we are left with an $800 million borrowing limit, then our capacity to do anything new, to be able to build the Northwest Territories, to implement the vision of the people of the Northwest Territories with things like the Mackenzie Valley Highway link from Norman Wells to Wrigley, the winter road here, converting that to an all-weather road, they need to look at generation and driving the costs of energy down in the communities, Yellowknife and all the other thermal communities are going to be severely curtailed and limited, and then we will be reduced to concluding the projects we have on our books to try to free up some capital.

We have $350 million allocated, roughly, for the Stanton renovation, for example, which is going to take up a lot of our room. We have the conclusion of the Tuk-Inuvik highway and the Fibre Optic Link. So, without the borrowing limit increase, we are going to be severely constrained for the life of this government and for the next. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Blake.

Thank you, Mr. Blake. The Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, we are very proud of our athletes’ achievements here in the Northwest Territories, and I think it’s been proven in the past that a number of our athletes are competing at an international level.

As far as the ski club goes, the community does have it within their means to provide that sort of infrastructure if they choose to. We can, as the department, work with the community to see how they can best use their infrastructure money that we give them to help with that. As far as equipment goes, there might be opportunities for some purchase of equipment with the money that they receive too. But we would be more than happy to work with the community to point out some of the options that they might have.

It seems like only the regional centres have ski clubs in this territory, so is this government willing to work with the smaller communities to make sure that they do have sufficient funds to have proper ski trails which can be used also for snowshoeing and even walking trails? We need proper equipment. For example, snowcats and groomers. I know those are a little costly, but these are needed. We have world-class sport athletes here in our territory and we need to ensure that they have the proper facilities in our communities.

As a government we do support the achievements of our high performance athletes. We try to assist them getting on to a national scale. Once they get on to a national scale, then there are other opportunities there for sponsorship. I take the Member’s point that in the communities they need to try and develop their athletes. We’ve seen a number of communities where they have strong snowshoeing programs because it’s a community pushed event.

If the community of Fort McPherson would want to do something on a ski trail and that, again, they have it within their means and our government will work with them to identify some of the options that they might have at their disposal. The regional centres do have ski clubs because members of the communities get together and they push for a ski club and try to find any assistance they can. But we will be more than happy to work with the community to help them with some of the options that they may have and what they may have at their disposal as far as spending goes.

Sometimes communities don’t have that as their priority. For example, the ski trails, as I mentioned. Can an organization within the community… Right now we have volunteers that provide these trails for our athletes with homemade groomers, yet we have world-class athletes. We need to ensure they have the proper equipment.

Will the Minister work with one of the organizations in the community to ensure that we have proper equipment?

Yes, we will work with the community and help them identify some of their options. If there’s a group there that’s interested, we will work with them to help them identify some of their options.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Nadli.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I’ve on occasion made statements regarding the Dehcho Process. I support the Dehcho Process mainly because I’m from the Deh Cho and I’d like to see it succeed, and at some point it will have a settled agreement between the Dehcho First Nations, Canada and the GNWT. Some people might be familiar that the negotiations have, in one perspective, advanced since 1921. There are people that believe negotiations just started recently. But what is important is that there used to be a spirit of being flexible and open, at the same time respecting the differences of, perhaps, governments and First Nations people, but with the intent and spirit of trying to be creative and trying to look at some unique models.

My question is to the Premier. There is the federal offer of land quantum, plus the GNWT as well have a different perspective on it. But my question is simple: Why is our government currently offering the Dehcho First Nations less land than Canada is willing to offer, by at least 2,000 square kilometres?

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad the Member asked me the question so that I could present the facts so that he can provide the correct information when he talks to his people.

We’ve been working for over two years to find a way to resolve some long-standing land issues with the Dehcho First Nations. We created a working group of senior officials where we spent over two years where we did come up with an agreement on how we could move forward. Those were rejected out of hand by the Dehcho First Nations leadership. I might add that the Government of the Northwest Territories increased the offer substantially that was made by Canada in 2007. That was rejected out of hand by the Dehcho First Nations.

Why, in the Premier’s opinion, shouldn’t the Deh Cho land quantum be at least equal to the Tlicho’s adjustment for population?

The GNWT offer and what’s been negotiated in negotiations with the Dehcho First Nations is the most favourable ever made in the Northwest Territories, if not Canada.

It’s pretty clear that the Premier in his opening statement said that my people are from the Deh Cho. The Premier is from Fort Providence. The Premier is a Metis from Fort Providence. He has an opportunity to help advance the Dehcho Dene and Metis of Fort Providence and the Dehcho First

Nations to come to an agreement. At the same time, I think this negotiation is sliding perilously into positional negotiations for both sides to become more entrenched and no movement will happen and people will walk away. I don’t want to see that. I’m sure the Premier does not want to see that as well. The question is: What happens after February 20th? Why would the Premier threaten to leave negotiations with the Dehcho First Nations if they cannot agree with the GNWT’s current position? Is that the path of trust and respect?

I’m glad for the opportunity to clarify statements attributed to me. We have not threatened to walk away. All we raise is the fact that despite all these best offers to the Dehcho First Nations, they’re all rejected out of hand, and so we should take that into consideration going forward.