Michael Miltenberger

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s part of our share of the cost-sharing arrangement, which is 70/30. Thank you.

The main extenuating circumstance with the Housing Corporation, of course, is the significant diminishment of funding from CMHC. They made a determination a number of years ago now that they’re getting out of funding O and M costs for public and social housing, and they’re doing that. The latest, I think, cut was over $900,000. We’re not shutting the houses down, so we carry the cost as long as we can. The Housing Corporation has been asked to fund that from within, but there comes a point where it’s not sustainable. We can’t afford to do that.

The other thing is when you look at our utilities...

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just quickly, we’ve had this discussion before and there are two basic approaches that I’ve lived through in government. In the old days your current year budget was always based on how much you spent the previous year. Government would spend all their money and at year end they would drive up their budgets and get funding starting that year based on that figure. It was an unsustainable pattern of constant, uncontrollable growth. The Legislature said this is not the way to do business, we cannot control government expenditures, we do not have enough say. So we’re going...

Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s one central operation for blood services. They circulate it. They create the products. It’s a high-tech, highly specialized, very carefully controlled process. One of the reasons being, as I’ve indicated in some previous answers, were the concerns about infection and the Krever inquiry. We’re part of the Canadian Blood Services Board and we sit at the table with the other provinces and territories and the federal government, and we buy from a central location where these highly specialized products are made.

I appreciate the Member’s comments. There is constant pressure on government to do more and constant pressure in this Assembly, constant pressure from our constituents. I mean, I’ve heard it around the table: let’s add money to pave roads, let’s add money for compassionate travel, let’s add money, let’s build more, let’s do things. We have to make choices and this Legislature has the authority. If they say that we’re not going to spend this money and we’re not going to pay for it, I mean, that’s our choice. We’re saying and we’re making the case here that these are very critical programs and...

Thank you, Madam Chair. This item could cost as much as now they say $10 million. It is a significant investment, so where we have a list of our priorities, it doesn’t rank up near the top of all of the things we need to spend that money on. Thank you.

Madam Chair, it’s $10 million. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Any opportunity we have to sit down with committee and get their input on how we can conduct our business, how we can improve our business would always be most welcome and if we can, I’m sure we’ll have opportunity between now and business planning process to sit down with committee and get their input. I think it’s something that we would be wise to do before we make our submissions for our next year’s planning.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Member has raised a number of critical points. I would point out that Stanton and Inuvik are acute care facilities and I think there is a direct correlation to the struggles with their costs and the fact that they are running the most expensive health programs that can be offered in the health care system. I would point out, as well, the Member commented that if health was a private business it would out of business. I would suggest to the Member that if he wants to see what would happen with a private business, then he could look south of the border, the 49th...

Yes, Madam Chair.