Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up where I left off with some questions on the future of business-related support here in the Northwest Territories. I want to just pick up where I left off again. We talked a little bit earlier about SEED. The average SEED contribution, Mr. Speaker, is only $6,000. You wonder how can we expect much in the way of business and employment creation when the average is $6,000 and the majority of that SEED funding, Mr. Speaker, appears to be for community events and ongoing subsidies like tools and snow machines and things like that. So I want to ask the Minister what are we doing in thinking larger picture on real job creation and business start-ups here in the Northwest Territories. What support is there for that, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bob McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have a tool kit of programs that can be accessed for a number of different programs. Through our loans programs, we can make business loans up to $2 million and we do have some grants and contribution programs. On an ad hoc basis, we can go approach FMB to see if there is funding that falls outside the different programs that can be used to promote development. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister talks about the departmental contributions. Like I said in my statement earlier today, just last year 15 of these clients received more than $100,000 in contribution financing. That’s two-thirds of the entire value of ITI’s contributions and not one of them, zero, was a private business. I would like to ask the Minister how do we get more funding in the hands of private business so we can create jobs and diversify our economy here in the Northwest Territories? Thank you.
I think it was two years ago when we went to establish the SEED program. We consulted with various committees and at that time, everyone agreed that we needed to get more funding into the level II communities and I think we’ve been very successful in doing that. The larger businesses can approach the banks or they can approach the BDIC for loans. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
That last question, that was about departmental contributions, it wasn’t about SEED, but I’ll take the answer for what it’s worth.
I want to talk about manufacturing and I talked about that as well being in serious decline. We’re losing value-added opportunities such as Fortune Minerals. We’ve got other opportunities on the horizon and I would like to ask the Minister why doesn’t the government of the Northwest Territories have an industrial development strategy. Thank you.
Perhaps if the federal government would devolve the responsibility for mining and oil and gas to the Government of the Northwest Territories, we would have an industrial strategy. Right now, all of the royalties go to the federal government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is an excuse, I guess, but we could use it as an excuse or we could use it as an opportunity. We have opportunities, Mr. Speaker, especially in the value-added side of things. I would like to ask the Minister again where is the department and the government when it comes to an industrial strategy so we can attract value-added opportunities here in the Northwest Territories to diversify our economy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I guess in the fact that the federal government has responsibility for oil and gas and mining and they collect all the royalties, we have been able to get through the back door through the environmental assessment process to promote value-added. I am pleased that the Member is supportive of value-added, because in Yellowknife when we set up the secondary diamond industry, we put a lot of money into it and we had a lot of pushback on it. To this date, we are reviewing our Diamond Policy and it’s something that’s tentative out there. I think everybody here wants to see value added. To date that’s the best way we’ve found to take advantage of development and certainly it’s something that’s probably, until such time as devolution and resource revenue sharing occurs, one of the only ways where we can get benefit from development.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to follow up on my Member’s statement earlier. My questions are for the lead Minister for energy or any other appropriate Minister. We all await the formal release of the internal NTPC review and we’ve seen the reports on the rate review. We’re interested in what the contribution is to providing to our energy future. Can the Minister confirm that a major intent of these reviews is to improve the affordability of power for all users through reduced costs?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister responsible for energy initiatives, Mr. Bob McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we started this process where we undertook the electricity review, it was understood that initially it was a three-part process. The first part was the electricity review, an NTPC review, and an ATCO proposal. We are working very closely with all Members of this Legislative Assembly and certainly our basic tenant is affordability.
I think we’ll all be keenly watching for improved affordability there. Obviously we can’t afford to endlessly review our energy providers. We’ve had other energy reviews of NTPC in the past and so on, and how we supply power. The public clearly wants action on this. The rates are going through the roof. Cheaper power, improved local opportunities and environmental sustainability must be key pillars in the results of these reviews. How is the Minister intending to ensure that these three needs will be advanced through the final decisions that result from the reviews?
I guess, first and foremost, I’ll be working very closely with my Legislative Assembly colleagues. We have also received input from almost all the sectors or interveners who have intervened in the process and also we’ve heard from a number of different associations and a number of municipalities that have given us their views on the direction we should go with the electricity rate review. What we are proposing to do is to put in front of the Members a number of different costs of modelling and to see the direction we’re heading in, to see if everybody is supportive. Hopefully when we do that it will cover the three basic principles that you outlined.
I think the last comment the Minister provided, I appreciate that information. The last comment is the source of my concern; that we’re waiting to see if these things are covered. I’m very concerned that those three pillars have not been sufficiently provided in the guidance to the reviews. Can the Minister assure us that they indeed were and we’re just not waiting to see if they happen to be covered in the results?
The terms of reference have been out there since last year sometime. Certainly our expectation is we will come up with rates that would cover all those pillars.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for that response. On the question of energy efficiency, which I again raised in my statement, the government has been providing rebates, which do help some of our public but certainly not those, and there are many, who cannot afford the other 80 to 90 percent of the cost of energy-efficient appliances and so on. We know that there are big expenditures within government, but I’m concerned that we’re not doing nearly enough in the outreach. I don’t really see in the review information I’ve seen so far that it’s addressed there. I’m wondering where the focus is on helping our citizens directly through energy efficiency and the huge gains we know are out there so that their cost of living can be reduced. Is there an opportunity for the Minister to make sure that gets addressed in there?
With regard to energy efficiency, I think the largest part of areas where you can make efficiencies would be the benefit from conservation. I think if we change the way costs are allocated with regard to the generation of electricity, I think that there is an avenue there. Certainly with the $60 million Alternative Energy Initiative that this government has instituted to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, I think we would benefit significantly from that. As well, through our Green Government Initiative I think there are certainly opportunities for government to reduce their consumption of energy. I think the biggest area in the scenario, where I’d be looking to my colleagues for some feedback and direction, I think is to change the way costs are allocated so that when you do practise conservation and become more energy efficient, then you benefit from those practices.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Health and Social Services.
What are the total costs associated with physician visits to Tsiigehtchic for the period between October 2008 and September 2009 and the cost per hour of physician services?
What are the total costs associated with registered nurse visits to Tsiigehtchic for the period between October 2008 and September 2009 and the cost per hour of nursing services?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.
Can the Minister provide to me the GNWT or Environment and Natural Resources definition of “consultation”?
Can the Minister outline the process that supported his decision to implement a ban on hunting caribou in the area in question?
Will the Minister provide an explanation as to why the caribou are calving two weeks later than the normal period for calving?
Can the Minister provide what types of interim agreements were signed with the Tlicho or Yellowknives Dene communities to implement the ban on hunting caribou?
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Wednesday, February 3, 2010, I will move that Bill 10, Exemption Act, be read for the first time.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Item 18, motions. Item 19, first reading of bills. Item 20, second reading of bills. Item 21, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Bill 2, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2009-2010; Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act; Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Summary Conviction Procedures Act; and Tabled Document 62-16(4), NWT Main Estimates, 2010-2011, with Mr. Bromley in the chair.
Greetings, committee. We’re all set to go here. We have before us today for consideration Bill 2, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2009-2010; Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Child and Family Services Act; Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Summary Conviction Procedures Act; Tabled Document 62-16(4), NWT Main Estimates, 2010-2011. What is the wish of committee? Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The committee would like to continue with general comments on the budget legislation and proceed, if we get through general comments, with the first department for consideration, the Department of Health and Social Services.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. So we will start. That was general comments on the budget and, if we get to it, the beginning of the review of Health and Social Services. Is the committee agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Short break.
---SHORT RECESS
Welcome back, committee. I’d like to call us to order. We are entertaining general comments on the budget. We’ll start with Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, with regard to the overall budget, there’s a lot of good things in it, but I think we’re losing sight of the reason why governments exist and operate is to provide services to its residents. For myself, that’s one area that I feel that is lacking with regard to this budget. We’ve done a lot of focus around infrastructure, we’ve done a lot of focus around building capacity for governments, government departments, large-scale projects, whether it’s the Deh Cho Bridge or looking at the Taltson project.
Again, I think that fundamentals for government and government responsibilities to providing services and something this government should seriously look at is what were the programs being provided prior to division to what programs and services are being provided today. I think it will definitely show that we have seen a decline in programs and services, especially in the smaller communities and an increase in programs and services in the larger communities. I think it’s pretty clear to see that from the allocations to the communities based on the distribution of services based on per capita has declined in those smaller communities compared to 1998-99 to where we are today.
I think, if anything, myself, I see that without having healthy, vibrant communities that are socially and economically viable to sustain themselves and also providing programs and services so that people do feel safe, secure and have assurances that their health and well-being is being taken into consideration and that those services are being provided, we will see a decrease of student attendance, a decrease in regards to health and social statistic with regard to diabetes, cancers, those ailments which could be preventable if the government focussed on sustainable communities.
I think it’s also important to relay that this government has to quit passing the buck with regard to saying it’s not up to us, it’s up to a health board, up to an education board. The Ministers of those departments have sole responsibility to ensure programs and services are being delivered and if they’re not being delivered, that you take steps to remedy the situation or take those dollars back from those particular agencies and ensure that those programs are administered through a different mechanism. I know there were discussions earlier on with regard to board reform and the more I think about it, that’s probably the way we should go.
Yay!
It’s important to realize that by doing that, it’s not simply a way of centralizing everything in one place, but ensuring that those dollars that should be expended in the area of education, the area of health care is actually being spent on education and actually being spent on health care and not being expended on administration.
I’m glad to see that the Department of ECE and the Housing Corporation saw the light in regards to dealing with public housing and income support. I think, if anything, there is also an area that Housing has to take a closer look at and consider exactly how do they calculate rents by way of using a formula used now, which I believe is unfair in regards to using gross income versus net.
I think, also, the other issue has to be dealt with around the area of affordability for housing. I think in most cases that we have to realize that we do have aging infrastructure. We do have people that are having some challenges with housing. We continue to put rents up and kick them out of housing but we still continue to pay to put them somewhere else. It is something that we have to grapple with. I think we have to look at housing in light of people that are homeless, people that are hard to house and the aging population of the people in the Northwest Territories. I think we do have to get back in some means, because the Department of Health and Social Services and Housing are finding a way to put more seniors housing or seniors facilities in the communities where basically the numbers allow it to be delivered by way of keeping the elders in the home communities, keeping them close to their families, but more importantly allow them to live out their days in comfort.
Again, like I stated, the overall budget is something that I think goes a long way to dealing with the infrastructure challenges that we face, but, again, we do have to find ways of ensuring the public that we are not spending public funds for basically government or non-government agencies regardless if it is the mining companies or the oil and gas companies or where we don’t receive any royalties or any real benefit by way of resource benefits in which all that flows to Ottawa. I think, at the end of the day, the federal government has to pay for those infrastructures regardless if it is a road to a mine, hydro development to a mine, and through those power purchase agreements that they should be able to stand on their own without any public funds being expended on it. Until there is some heritage fund of some sort established, and I think on the heritage fund idea, I think it is a great idea. I think what we should do is be requiring that the federal government take some of the Norman Wells resources that it presently receives today and put it into the heritage fund immediately. The federal government owns one-third of the Norman Wells field. They own it. It is a Crown corporation or the federal government has one-third ownership of the Norman Wells oilfield. If anything, that is what we should be asking for, is that we take a portion of one-third ownership, take those revenues that they receive, which I believe is somewhere in the range of $200 million a year, and put it into a heritage fund regardless if that fund is going to be used to build the Mackenzie Highway or used to ensure that we have dollars there to develop the infrastructure that is going to be needed to extract other resources regardless if it is oil and gas or minerals or even for tourism.
Again, on the Deh Cho Bridge, I think that it is long overdue. It is on its way. I do support the concept of the Deh Cho Bridge of how we can develop infrastructure in the Northwest Territories. I think the government has to think outside the box and realize the Deh Cho Bridge is the first of many bridges we need in the Northwest Territories and start focusing on those other crossings regardless if it is the Liard, the Peel, the Mackenzie up around Tsiigehtchic or in regards to the Mackenzie Valley. The Mackenzie Valley, we have invested some $30 million on bridges. I think, by doing that, we now have a better case for the Mackenzie Highway to finding ways of actually connecting those bridges and building the Mackenzie Highway up the valley and, more importantly, working with the private sector, working with the aboriginal organizations to get there.
Before I close, I don’t want to lose sight of the issue that is still on top of my agenda, is the access road from Aklavik to the gravel source. Again, there is nothing even mentioned in this agreement or this package. It was mentioned previously. Again, this government has an obligation to ensure communities have access to the gravel sources and not to find a way that, sorry, now it is the federal government’s responsibility. It is the Government of the Northwest Territories to find a way to strike gravel from public infrastructure in communities such as the gravel source in Aklavik which, again, I see very little by way of this import of this government. I don’t know why, but for some reason they are totally reluctant to step up to the plate.
There was a motion passed in this Legislative Assembly supporting two projects. One was Tuktoyaktuk to the gravel source. The other was to Aklavik gravel source. Again, this government, for some reason or another, and I don’t know if it is a feel good capital item or not, but again I will be stressing that I was hoping that we could see something added in this budget. Again, there is nothing there mentioning that. I think also realizing that the community of Aklavik is very frustrated with the way they have been treated on this matter and not being fair to that community. With that, Mr. Chair, I will leave it at that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. We are open for general comments. Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Chairman, my comments would be brief in terms of the budget. I do want to thank the staff members and the Ministers for putting together this budget. I know that the budget process is quite contentious and that the needs are always greater than what we could afford and that priorities have to be considered and sometimes when I have issues that want to be brought forward to see if they can get any attention, sometimes they go in with the mix of other things and sometimes they don’t come out on top or it has to be considered at another time.
Mr. Chairman, the budget here shows an increase of 7.6 percent from 2009-2010. This shows for me a huge increase in terms of our operations. Mr. Chairman, the budget also shows that there are some changes to the sunset within the government. There are some decisions that need to be made, if we are going to continue funding some of these sunset programs that are not yet being secured through this government in terms of if the federal government would fund these certain programs. They have been funded in the past. That is quite a concern to me in terms of some really good programs that did come out from the sunset programs such as the HELP program. That is a concern to me. How do we continue in this type of funding?
Mr. Chairman, the funding for the TSC, for example, seems to be a department that always seems to be increasing their funding each year. It doesn’t seem that we have any type of control. I would like to see in the future the government can have some discussions as to polling the TSC in line in terms of increasing funding. They have been asking for a few dollars every year that seems to increase to a point where it questions what the increases really are for. I want to say to the Minister in terms of putting this budget together not knowing the certainties of the federal government, I think in the future in terms of revenue that it’s going to be quite challenging for the next couple of years. The programs in the communities are desperately needed and should be continued. Looking at some of the programs, I don’t quite believe that it should be there in terms of some of the funding. There are other basic needs that really need to be looked at, such as health care in our communities, education programs in our communities.
Even the energy initiative programs, Mr. Chair, that seems to be a priority for other communities. However, in the Sahtu region it seems that the energy initiative programs are not given a priority in our region. Just looking at the energy initiatives in areas where there’s lower prices per kilowatt, just on the Energy Initiative, for example, there seems to be a lot of programs or support for communities with very low costs to their energy, the power. It seems like communities such as Good Hope, Deline, Tulita or Colville Lake, even the Wells, they’re not getting that much attention as opposed to other communities like Fort Smith that has a huge number of projects going there to look at the energy efficiency of certain operations there. So I’m not too sure of the consultation or the qualifications for having other communities being considered for these types of projects, because in our communities there’s a high cost of fuel through the barge system, transportation of the fuel, the isolation.
We, as you know, are not on the all-weather road system. I’m very happy with the Ministers who are looking at the construction of the Mackenzie Valley Highway in the Sahtu. We certainly want to look at continued support of the bridging program, which is a lot of money, and we want to look at other infrastructure that would support our communities.
The health program services we see certainly need to be stabilized and we certainly need to look at programs such as the Diabetes Program, programs that need to be run in the communities where support is there for people. There’s certainly an increase in terms of diabetes. The communities are looking forward to seeing how we could have more programs like that in our communities. When you look at operations and maintenance for health services, for example, in Yellowknife you’ll see we have allocated some $2 million for a dementia facility and when you look into the communities where you want to see some basic programs such as health care, dental care, doctor care, we seem to be told that the money is not there and that we have to look elsewhere or we’ll do some other creative solutions to take care of the health of our people.
Mr. Chair, it’s quite disheartening. It’s almost to a point of is the government really concerned about the health of our people in our communities where other regions have, compared to the Sahtu, really good health care in their communities.
So I’ve got some points that I want to point out in the budget with each department and, overall, I want to say that I welcome this budget and hope that there are some changes that could see some benefits to the people in my region that I represent. Mahsi.
Thank you. Next on the list I have Mr. Jacobson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m really happy with the budget that’s been provided to us, especially seeing the enhancement to early childhood programming in the rural remote communities. That is really going to be a big help for the communities that I represent up and down the Valley in Tuk, Sachs, Paulatuk, Ulukhaktok, especially with the monies that we’re getting for support with…(inaudible)…support for regional sporting events. That’s going to be able to bring the youth in from the outlying communities. I think this year, Mr. Chairman, they’re heading into Fort McPherson for a soccer tournament or a basketball tournament. They’re flying in from all over the region. So I look forward to going over and supporting our youth in sporting events like that.
The $450,000 regional youth officer positions to support youth and programming also in rural and remote communities was really good to see, because this year we had a little bit of problems in Ulukhaktok for the settlement maintainers. So it was really good to see in the budget that Ulukhaktok, Sachs Harbour settlement maintainers, so it could properly maintain the schools and all the government buildings. So that’s good to see. The overall school replacements I’d like to see for next year so I could get the addition for Mangilaluk School put in and I’ll be pushing that this year.
Our formula funding for the communities was really good to see so our communities or our hamlets’ community infrastructure funding is getting a good $28 million in the budget once passed. I think that’s a really good opportunity for us as a government to help our local community governments succeed in what they’re trying to do and cover the shortfalls.
The airport infrastructure improvements, this year we’re getting the two airports in my riding. So I’m looking forward to the grand opening of that with the Minister. I look forward to that, Mr. Minister. Good job.
One thing that we do have to worry about is with the health care in our communities where our doctors and the dental teams coming into the communities that are such a short time frame. I asked this last year, just making sure utilization is to the max in regards to that, because we’re having to send kids out to Inuvik now for dental and it’s not maintained, it’s probably taken out. So we have to really start working with the local health centres to see if we could help them with that.
Another one is housing. We still have a real shortage of housing units in the community. So what we have to do is… Especially in Sachs Harbour and Paulatuk and Ulukhaktok, those communities are short units. So I hope we could put somewhere in the budget for this coming year if we could get one or two units extra in the communities.
Like Mr. Yakeleya said earlier, our power costs in the community and the cost of living is 80 percent to 300 percent cost difference in regard to just general items to try to feed your family. It’s pretty tough. You know, I have a family of nine, so it’s “Kids, chew your food slowly.” The cost of living is really great. If you’re not a two-income family, it makes it tough. Not only that, not everybody has jobs in our communities. The biggest thing is ECE has to come on side in regards to maximizing and giving and they’ve got to really see if we could work on the allocation of the funding that they’re getting.
Other than that, right through the whole budget I’m happy, and I look forward to going through the page by page with my colleagues on a go-forward basis of this and getting this job done. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There certainly are some good things in this budget, and I appreciate those. I think, at the same time, though, that we are missing opportunities. Here we are on our third budget. Things should be very clear to us now and, like I say, I see some missed opportunities.
I’d like to start, though, with concerns about capacity and implementation. We have a lot of what I think are very good strategies either developed or under development: the Water Strategy, the Hydro Strategy, Energy Strategy and so on. The biomass strategy, I hope to hear about soon, but I really have serious concerns about capacity there. We can have all the strategies we want, but if we don’t have the capacity to implement, then that’s not going to get us anywhere. I don’t see that aspect of it reflected in the budget. The devil is in the details and perhaps there are details on that to come out. But that’s an area where if we do not nail down the expertise required for some of these things -- some of them do require very specific expertise -- all other jurisdictions are dealing with these same issues and will be nailing down that expertise.
So again, I say this is a missed opportunity if we’re not moving on building that into our system and that means, of course, that we need to, to stay within our means, drop some things.
There again, I’d rather see a more productive program review office. I think they made some good achievements with the general purpose office space review, but there’s so much more that they could and should be doing and it’s very difficult to find out information about that. One of the things on that is a cross-departmental thing, basically the role of integration and coordination; connecting the dots, basically. So many of our programs, so many of our issues and needs are cross-departmental, and yet we have these isolated, independent… I’m starting to sound like I must have sounded -- many of us did -- during our first budget review. So these things keep popping up and I don’t see us being effective at this yet.
On the policy development side, I haven’t seen much on that and compared to the need, I’m very happy to see the heritage fund highlighted in the Minister’s remarks. Let’s get that designed and in place ASAP. I think that’s been clear, both from the public and from my colleagues.
On the revenue side, I think we are again missing opportunities on the resource tax and the capital tax side of things. We heard that the pipeline, the Mackenzie Gas Project is moving forward and yet so many things… We’ve known about this for years and contemplating this and other sorts of non-renewable resource projects and haven’t moved on these things. These are missed opportunities, and the rates that we establish can be sensitive to economic situations, so that when we do have a kerfuffle like in 2008-09, they can respond automatically to that. But to keep postponing them, these are very unlikely to happen now in the life of this government. We were certainly talking about them when I joined, so presumably they were talked about before. We don’t even have the basic policy done to implement those if and when we decide to.
Mackenzie Gas Project, again, JRP report, what are the financial implications? These things are huge that are called for in the recommendations. Again, I don’t see that well addressed. The policy side, the point of sale, as I understand it, the pipeline is being built 100 or 10 metres into Alberta, so the point of sale is down there and that removes an incredible opportunity for income for us. Where is our policy work on that and making sure NEB requires a point of sale to be Northwest Territories?
In a similar vein, the Petroleum Products Tax Act. We do not tax natural gas right now, and they’re talking about generating a lot of power with natural gas. Again, we’ve talked about that ever since I’ve been here, and presumably people talked about that before. That gets into the whole need to review that act and realign taxes on petroleum products to reflect the carbon content of our fuels, of those fuels, and thus also provide a foundation to any carbon pricing we might contemplate in the future and, again, a huge policy area that should have been highlighted.
There was a positive thing I wanted to mention there. I see on the property tax side… Sorry, I’ve got to seek those out. The property tax side, we did get some work done last year, and I think there are more opportunities there. The pipeline would certainly be a huge piece of infrastructure. How are we taking advantage of that given our limitations?
The public housing review subsidy -- thank goodness. Really good stuff there. Stanton Territorial Hospital; again, where are the plans for that? Those of us in Social Programs had a tour of the hospital. It’s been talked about ad nauseam in the House. Well, perhaps it’s in there in the details and I didn’t see it, but all of the Northwest Territories knows serious work is needed there. Let’s get it going.
Nutritious foods studies, and yet more, and nutritious food education programs, we have so much going. I think we can do better than that. We’ve talked about a milk subsidy. I think some real opportunity lies there.
Sole-source contracting work, I hope that we’re going to do a review and get… It should not be just used so much. It should be… And it shouldn’t be internal. We should really be putting that work out competitively much more than we are.
Cost of living, it’s so tied to our energy costs and energy initiatives, so I think there’s much more, again, opportunities to achieve more with the dollars that we’re spending in that. As per my statements and discussion earlier today, we need to ensure that whatever we do in these energy initiatives, they address the cost of living, the affordability of energy, and contribute to the development of the local economies by ensuring development of renewable, local energy, which would also, of course, build the ability to pay.
Aboriginal languages; I see we have some support there, but I don’t see enough support in that area. Goyatiko, for example -- the local Yellowknife standing program based in Dettah -- offers courses for the ALSIP program, but they’re isolated courses, they’re not a program. We’ve moved, I understand, to a community-based delivery of that, and yet where is the support so that a full program can actually be provided rather than just isolated programs that don’t deliver the certificates that are needed.
Child care; you’ve heard me talk about child care before and you will again, I’m sure. Early childhood; very happy to see the $600,000 for rural and remote programs and I think there are further opportunities there. I wonder if we should start thinking about full child care services for the people of the Northwest Territories. That’s provided in Quebec and possibly other jurisdictions in Canada and has yielded a lot of benefits. So that’s something I think we should be thinking about.
Finally, the arts industry support has again increased a little bit. I am very happy to see that. I think that is giving us good returns. One area that needs additional work is the area of the film industry. Really big opportunities there. We have incredible talent that is not able to be put to work. Our support there is kind of Mickey Mouse. Of course there are some caribou issues that we are hearing about and could use a little additional spending to try and get at what the real reasons are for the exceptional declines we have seen.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up. Mahsi.
General Comments. Mr. Hawkins.
