Michael Miltenberger

I would like to point out, as well, that the majority of this money is program money that is spent at the community level. The money for fuel and utilities is for the cost across the government in all of the communities, not just headquarters. We have built in the $60 million to try to do alternate energy to lower cost of living. We have a 9 percent increase for communities. I recognize the issue by the concern raised by the Member, but we have to keep in mind that a lot of this money is program money for communities. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, over the last five years this is the second lowest amount of supps if you look at the list that we gave you, including the $15 million that was already apportioned out. I think ‘04-05 was probably the year that was slightly lower. Every other year was significantly higher.

I take the Member’s comments. We’ve had this discussion about the process and it’s not surprises so much as we targeted areas where we know that there’s costs we may not control, and rather than build in estimates into the budget, which can be imprecise, the direction has been to...

I understand the formula that they have builds in and offsets this budget that is currently before the House. It has a 9 percent increase for communities in a time when the average growth of government is down probably in the 1, 2 or 3 percent range. Plus we have managed to offset 16 cents a litre for our other fuels this year because of some of the benefits we have realized by coming over the top and the lowering price of fuel. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

There was a supp done in 2007-08 to cover off the $800,000. They were short out of their supp reserve, a portion of last year. They put $800,000 in out of it to keep their utilities figure where it was so it was dealt with in both years.

As a government we’ve already made a decision that we were going to stand back from the $30 million in revenue that we were going to generate through possible tax increases. So at this point, given the economic circumstances, we don’t see any type of new tax regime as having much appropriateness at this particular time. Once again, we’ll bring forward a very basic paper on the potential of equity positions by governments, does it make sense, is it affordable, and if it is, would we even want to consider it given all our other pressures. Thank you.

We will look forward to having that discussion early in the spring here as we sort out going forward into 2010-11. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve committed to get a document done, a basic discussion paper that I’ve committed to share with the Members. Clearly, if we look at this area we have to be prepared, as the Member indicated, to consider everything. We’re going to have very limited capacity to take an equity position in anything, I would suggest. However, we will do a paper, lay out what may be entailed and what our capabilities are. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, those two figures were money that was put towards both the Stanton and to Inuvik Health and Social Services Authority as an offset to help them cover some of their costs and mitigation measures that they weren’t able to implement. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we should be able to put pen to paper on this within a month. Thank you.