Thank you, Mr. Chair. If there is a requirement for new telecommunications equipment or new hardware that goes into broadcasting technology, the microphones that we're using today, am I correct that that is therefore all handled by the O and M budget? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the information technology projects side, I'm just wondering where the infrastructure support comes for the Legislative Assembly's role in communicating with citizens. Is it through this budget or is it through the technological service centre, which would be a later issue to discuss infrastructure? Thank you.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is pretty clear it is question period, not answer period, because again, the Minister is not providing answers. My final question: I am going to ask if the Minister could take responsibility for these delays personally and back off the approach he took last week of blaming the standing committee for holding up the process. Will the Minister personally take responsibility for these delays and acknowledge that this work has been delayed since day one? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think the students expect more than just a plan. They want these programs to be retained, and also our own Skills 4 Success document wants these programs to be retained and effective. We need change now, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask if this contractor the Minister has hired has any experience with transforming educational institutions towards vocational skills, like taking a community college and turning it into a polytechnic or an institution of higher learning. Does this contractor have any experience with that, or are we just looking at an accounting review?

We are trying to work with the Minister on this process. Everyone on this side of the House, when we get surprises like eliminating the Aurora College board, with delaying a mandate commitment that has been a mandate commitment from day one, there is a bit of consternation on this side of the House. The mandate makes a commitment, again from day one, to have a renewed strategic plan, some sort of plan for Aurora College. Will that work be done by the end of this term?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, earlier today the honourable Member from Nahendeh talked about the fine work the Standing Committee on Social Development has done on the foundational review, and it makes me reconsider some of the Education Minister's comments from last week.

I wonder if he can answer this for me: what does he think the role of the standing committee is? From his statement, he seems to not address the fact that they are working on his timelines to provide the required advice. Further, he has gone on record saying that there was little agreement on what to do with the teacher education program and social work program. There was plenty of agreement on this side of the House: preserve the program and make it work. What is the role of the standing committee in this process, Mr. Speaker? Is it to blame it for delays, or is it to actually work with it to get results? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to recognize Ms. Krista Schauerte, Ms. Lindsay Paul, and Ms. Samantha Brissette. They are all Aurora College nursing and social work students. I would also like to recognize Ms. Prudence Kalnay- Watson, who is only four but is joining us today in the gallery. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as all honourable Members of this House know, I have been a consistent advocate of natural resources development and mineral exploration since I was elected almost two years ago. It is the life blood of our economy, representing almost 40 per cent of our GDP, and an important part of our heritage and the key to our future prosperity. Mr. Speaker, Northerners look optimistically towards the opportunities that future mining projects will create for our communities. Although we are all hoping for that next big discovery and see new projects at the scale of the Ekati or Daivik mines, today I would like to recognize the great success of the Northwest Territories' newest diamond mine: Gahcho Kue.

On September 20, the Gahcho Kue diamond mine has just celebrated its one-year anniversary since operations began. A joint venture between De Beers Canada and Mountain Province Diamonds, Gahcho Kue is the world's largest mine to open in the last 13 years, located at Kennady Lake, approximately 280 km northeast of Yellowknife and 80 km southeast of De Beers' Snap Lake Mine. This open-pit operation will employ about 530 workers and will produce almost 54 million carats of rough diamonds from an estimated 35 million tonnes of ore during its approximately 12-year lifespan.

Mr. Speaker, those are big numbers, but they translate into an even larger number for our economy: $5.3 billion in gross value added output. That means jobs for Northerners and proves the incredible potential of resource development industry and the future it holds for us all.

Mr. Speaker, it is projects like these that keep our territory from being dominated by public sector spending. It is projects like these that create real economic growth that benefits northern communities and northern businesses. It is projects like these that make the North what it is today, a place of opportunity, hard work, and limitless potential.

Mr. Speaker I offer my sincere congratulations to De Beers Canada, Mountain Province Diamonds, and the workers who have made the Gahcho Kue mine such a grand success, and I thank them for investing in the North and its peoples. I wish them only continued success for the future and hope that we see more mining success stories as we continue to support a prosperous future for our Northwest Territories. Thank you Mr. Speaker.