Floyd Roland

Mr. Speaker, as the Members are aware, we’ve been trying to finalize a schedule of getting the upcoming budget in place and how much of the change we can incorporate in our first year. So the time line’s in front of us.

Much of that work would flow into the ’09-’10 business plan process, so we’re going to see what work may be able to be carried forward. But the refocusing piece, and the amount of work that’s required, would take us more time than the typical approach we take to business planning. I would say much of this type of work would flow through into the ’09-’10 business plan process.

Mr. Speaker, the work that was done previously, in fact, was chaired by Minister Miltenberger. It just so happens that in this government, the 16th Assembly, he is the lead on the refocusing-government portion of our initiatives. This area would be falling under that activity.

Mr. Speaker, we would have to look at all the boards and agencies, not just health authorities but education authorities, the relationship we have with them, and the LHOs as well, looking at where there may be potential overlaps. That work is to be done, and the lead Minister, again, is Minister Miltenberger. They’ve...

Mr. Speaker, in a sense there are a number of partners involved in this. We are back stoppers, in a sense, as was pointed out by Members of this Assembly, on this project. Information that we would do, we would share with all parties involved. They haven’t requested this, and I can’t see why we would go to them for their evaluation of our work.

From the FMBS side, we have been monitoring the fiscal impacts of this project and ensuring that we’ve covered off areas of risk points for the G.N.W.T.

Mr. Speaker, the question asked of them, as I responded the other day, was work we could do for our membership. I am sure, even when the question was asked, that the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation’s interest is in looking at what liabilities they may be at risk for.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess, number one, I wouldn’t want to, for debate on this subject, say that the Member has raised an issue that I think falls under more debate than what’s happening. Specifically to the issue that she’s raised on this item, we know that as Members of this House we debate a lot of things in this House or respond as Ministers are required to respond to questions that Members put before us. We respond with information from briefing notes that are done up by departments and so on and so forth with that area. Even the questions, as she’s referenced herself to this...

I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Thebacha, that Bill 2, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 3, 2007-2008, be read for the third time.

I move, seconded by the Hon. Member from Deh Cho, that Bill 1, Interim Appropriation Act, 2008-2009, be read for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes the government of the Northwest Territories to make interim appropriations for the 2008-2009 fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, one thing we’ve learned — and we must learn from past history — is if we are going to make decisions, we have to make sure they don’t come back and reinvent themselves because we haven’t quite closed all the loopholes that may be established or end up coming out as we make changes. There’s a substantial amount of work involved in the refocusing-government piece. The boards and agencies are a big piece of that. As I’ve worked with Members, our time frames…. There’s a lot of work being done now. The time frames we have are tight, and that is one of the reasons why it would fall into...

Mr. Speaker, we’re not about reinventing the wheel. If work’s been done by previous governments, that would be a good starting point for us. It is part of the work that’s included. This refocusing-government piece will incorporate a whole number of initiatives, this being one of those.

Mr. Speaker, peer reviews are done on a whole number of initiatives. In fact, as we're doing our work in preparing for the business plan, looking at our fiscal situation, deputy ministers would be sitting down together to review each other’s options that they may be working on. We’ve seen that in a number of initiatives throughout.

For ourselves, though, a peer review on the financial side, when you look at it, is a review of the work that's done. There has been a cost-benefit analysis that is public. Yes, when you look at it, the numbers have changed since the price has gone up.

But if we take...