Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some of my comments will be similar to my colleague's, the honourable Member from Frame Lake.

On the issue of the Power Corporation, the Power Corporation is now a de facto government entity, and I am not sure why. We have been told before, when this question has been probed, that the committee can make special arrangements to have the Northwest Territories Power Corporation appear and present its capital estimates and speak to any specific projects.

I think this is additional work, given that this is not an arm's-length entity anymore. The board is now made up of deputy ministers. I believe the chairperson is here in the Chamber today, Mr. Chair, and the public accounts have also been changed to reflect that NTPC is now, in fact, part of the government's reporting entity. Given all these things, I think it is inappropriate to continue to insist that the Power Corporation be held to a different process. I encourage the Minister to make changes to future capital planning as long as the status of NTPC remains equivalent to the current conditions.

I also have concerns about the capital budget as a whole. I acknowledge that the capital planning cycle exists for a reason, but even given this, the House approves budgets and appropriates money for specific purposes as contained within those estimates. We are also bound to follow policy and legislation that indicates how those budgets are presented and how they are adhered to. In the case of capital, we adhere to the Fiscal Responsibility Policy to ensure that our capital expenditures are pegged to our operational surplus, but we approve capital budgets a year ahead of approving the budget that contains that operational surplus, which leaves us in a curious situation where we are approving capital budgets based on a Fiscal Responsibility Policy that limits our expenditure to those surpluses that are based on projections and not based on what the House appropriates. Again, the House appropriates money for specific purposes, and that is done through votes.

In approving this budget, which I am expecting we will do, perhaps not completely as it is listed today, it is based on a projection. It is not based on a concrete surplus. I think that creates challenges for what this Fiscal Responsibility Policy really means. It is not reported unclearly. If there is a difference between the two budgets that we will only find out until next year, the difference is made up through supplementary reserve spending and other fiscal authority.

Given that, what is the point of having it if we can make it work whenever we need to correct a deficiency within the Fiscal Responsibility Policy? This is just a paper policy. It's so complex that it obfuscates the work we do here, which is giving these budgets proper assessment and ensuring that money that is appropriated is appropriated for specific purposes and those purposes are met by the government. I think we need to take a look at this, a more detailed look, perhaps behind the scenes, but certainly it's worth mentioning now that we've had a couple of kicks at the can on capital estimates.

That being said, I support much of what is being suggested for appropriation here and I will have specific questions for departments, but those higher-level questions of what to make of the Power Corporation not being contained in these estimates; what to make of the Fiscal Responsibility Policy when it's not being clearly articulated, just exists in the background and it seems to be flexible when necessary and rigid when not. That policy also limits our capital expenditures, which means that we have a fixed amount of money to work with each time around.

There may be times when capital needs are required above and beyond operational expenditure, so it is in a way a policy that binds the Assembly in how it appropriates money. I would appreciate if the Minister and his witnesses, at the appropriate time, can speak to some of these concerns and make it clear for members of the public how this policy works and how it leads to not only the stated objective of fiscal responsibility but also how it supports transparency.

My final point on the introductory page in the Main Estimates, page 2, the introduction, the first bullet point of the priorities that this budget supports is "increasing transparency and accountability and strengthening consensus government." If the Minister could explain how this budget does that, I would be appreciative of that, as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.