I would like to provide a report from the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning. It’s a report on the 2008-2009 draft Interim Appropriation.
The Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning met to review the draft 2008-2009 interim appropriation between January 14 and 23, 2008. The draft interim appropriation included operations expenditures needed for the first quarter of the 2008-2009 fiscal year as well as a preliminary infrastructure acquisition plan. The operations expenditures are based on the 2007-2008 main estimates and do not include any new initiatives or reductions.
The committee agreed to support the operations component of the draft interim appropriation in the interest of the government being able to continue to provide programs and services without disruption, pending the approval of the full 2008-2009 main estimates.
This report should in no way be seen as an endorsement of the status quo. The committee fully expects that operations expenditures will be reconsidered in the context of our caucus priorities and that changes will be reflected in this year’s business plan and main estimates.
In the course of our discussions on the preliminary infrastructure acquisition plan, it became clear to Members that an overhaul of the entire capital planning process is urgently needed.
Over time, the plan that Members vote on at the outset of the fiscal year has come to bear less and less resemblance to the reality of the work that actually gets completed. Price estimates provided in the plan are often inaccurate and out of date. As a result, Members are not sufficiently informed of the full cost of the project under consideration.
Schedules and time frames are unrealistic and do not reflect the limited availability of contractors to undertake the work. This, along with insufficient accountability for project completion, has led to substantial carry-overs from one fiscal year to the next and an ever growing infrastructure backlog.
With every day of delay, the price of addressing the backlog is inflating as construction costs are rising at a rate well above the overall Consumer Price Index. The carry-over for capital projects and infrastructure contributions from 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 was a staggering $97 million.
Further, energy efficiency does not appear to be a consistent component of new infrastructure design. Members fear that this pay-later approach will leave us with buildings that we cannot afford to operate as fuel prices continue to rise.
Finally, the committee sees a need to revisit the overall fiscal strategy and the amount of infrastructure investment projected over the next several years. In light of these concerns, the committee was pleased to hear that the Premier has assigned a cabinet committee to examine the capital planning process. The Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning has requested that two Regular Members participate directly in this review as our representatives.
Members also expressed concerns that some projects included in the ‘07-08 main estimates are no longer in the plan while some new projects appear to have been fast-tracked. The committee requested and received detailed explanations for these changes. In order to ensure that new projects are properly considered in context, the committee recommended that the government revise the plan to include only those items which absolutely require approval prior to the ‘08-09 main estimates and provide a justification for the need to include each of those items in the interim appropriation. The committee agreed that acceptable justification might include addressing urgent safety issues, honouring existing contractual obligations and meeting shipping deadlines for materials.
This concludes the report of the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning on the draft 2008-2009 interim appropriation. Individual Members may have questions and comments as we proceed. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that Committee Report 1-16(2) be received and adopted. Thank you.
Motion carried.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document, entitled Biomass Heating System, Wood Pellet Boilers: North Slave Correctional Centre, Yellowknife, NT. Thank you.
Document 18-16(2), Biomass Heating System, Wood Pellet Boilers: North Slave Correctional Centre, tabled.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document, entitled Minister of Transportation’s Annual Report to the Legislative Assembly for 2007 on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (1990). Thank you.
Document 19-16(2), Minister of Transportation’s Annual Report to the Legislative Assembly for 2007 on the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act (1990), tabled.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document, entitled 2006-2007 Annual Report of the Western Northwest Territories Biophysical Study. Thank you.
Document 20-16(2), 2006-2007 Annual Report of the Western Northwest Territories Biophysical Study, tabled.
In response to Motion 17-15(4), adopted by this House on March 2, 2006, I wish to table the Report of the Auditor General of Canada on the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation Public Housing and Homeownership Programs — February 2008.
Document 21-16(2), Report of the Auditor General of Canada on the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation Public Housing and Homeownership Programs — February 2008, tabled.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Monday, February 18, 2008, I will move the following motion: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that the Legislative Assembly strongly recommends that the responsibility for the administration of social housing be once again placed under the control of the NWT Housing Corporation; and further, in keeping with the concept of centralizing subsidy programs, that responsibility for determining the methodology of calculating social housing subsidies be retained by the Department of Education, Culture and Employment; and furthermore, that this Legislative Assembly recommend that the government provide a response to this motion within 120 days.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Monday, February 18, 2008, I will move the following motion: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, that this Legislative Assembly recognize and support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as an international legal instrument; and further, that this Legislative Assembly strongly urge the Government of Canada to respect and honour the decision of the international community in adopting the declaration; and furthermore, that this Legislative Assembly strongly recommend that the government of the Northwest Territories formally request the Government of Canada to reverse its current position and support the declaration.
Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 17, motions. Item 18, first reading of bills. Item 19, second reading of bills. Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, Minister’s Statement 1-16(2), Minister’s Statement 9-16(2) and Bill 1, with Mr. Krutko in the chair.
I’d call the Committee of the Whole to order. We have Minister’s Statement 1-16(2), Minister’s Statement 9-16(2) and Bill 1, Interim Appropriation Act, 2008-2009. What is the wish of the committee? Mrs. Groenewegen.
Mr. Chairman, the committee today wishes to consider Bill 1, Interim Appropriation Act, 2008-2009. The Minister has provided his opening comments, and we would like to proceed with general comments. Thank you.
Is the committee agreed?
Agreed.
With that, we’ll take a short break and begin with general comments.
The Committee of the Whole took a short recess.
I’ll call Committee of the Whole back to order.
Bill 1
Interim Appropriation Act, 2008-2009
At this time I’ll ask the Minister if he’d like to bring in witnesses.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, Mr. Roland, could you introduce your witness.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Joining me at the witness table is Mr. Sandy Kalgutkar, who is the director of Budget Evaluation for the Financial Management Board Secretariat.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. Welcome to your witness.
General comments in regard to the Minister’s opening statement. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The report or response to the interim appropriation report was read into the record earlier today, into these proceedings. Just to speak to those issues in a little bit more detail.
This is an unusual budgeting year because of the Territorial election. It throws us off our normal schedule and thus the need for an interim appropriation. I think the interim appropriation from an O&M point of view can be fairly well characterized as a status quo kind of extension of previous fiscal years’ operations.
I think that where we got into more concentrated discussion was around the capital that the government felt it was necessary to incorporate into the interim appropriation. Certainly, the way we are somewhat or even, I should say, extensively affected by things such as our short summer season and that some of our shipping methods in the Northwest Territories have a seasonal aspect to them as well, we were very interested in knowing which capital projects needed to be advanced and brought into an interim appropriation as opposed to an irregular budgeting process. We were able to obtain information from the government as to the rationale for including as much capital in the interim appropriation as was contained in there, so there has been some dialogue back and forth with the government with respect to the capital pieces.
Some of the things that we were concerned about not interfering with were where there was already a contractual arrangement that had been put in place for a certain project and there were obligations to meet under that. We were also obviously concerned about any projects that needed to be advanced in a timely manner because of any safety or code issues. In our capital planning criteria, of course, the protection of people and the protection of assets are very high on that list of priorities. And the other thing that we didn’t want to be ignorant of, I suppose, was the need to pass things in order for materials to be shipped so that things could be built at the most cost-effective time of the year. When you start getting into winter construction and hoarding and heating and all kinds of other costs, it doesn’t take long to add a lot of money onto your capital project. So those are the kinds of things that we were looking for.
Anything that could be deferred we were wanting to defer to a normal process, so we did get information back on those projects. On the individual projects I think Members will have questions and comments, but I would like to thank the government for doing some extra work for us to help us understand the need to include certain projects in the interim appropriation.
So with that focus on the capital part of the interim appropriation as well, we felt it was necessary to discuss the entire capital planning process and how we go about doing that. We feel a lot of pressure. We have limited money for capital, we have a lot of capital demands on our budget and we want to ensure that the capital planning process is such that we can assure ourselves that we’re getting the most value for the money that we do have to spend and that we limit things like capital carryovers.
Also, looking at the idea that the value of a dollar today might have less value a year from now and that we don’t have a crystal ball, we can’t judge what other kinds of influences are going to come to bear on the price of capital projects in the future. Right now there’s a lot of competition for trades people and workers for some of the building demands in Alberta. We feel in some ways that here in the Northwest Territories we’ve been swept up in those fast-rising costs of capital projects, and we want to look at ways of mitigating that, whether it means staging or pacing projects, I guess, in such a way that we can maximize the use of Northern contractors, maximize Northern content in those projects and certainly maximize Northern workers. If there are ways that we as a government can make decisions that will positively impact those things, those are the kinds of decisions that we want to make.
Also, in our capital planning it’s been brought up — and it’s a very good point, and I’m sure Members will want to elaborate on this — that we have gone away from standardized types of design and engineering on buildings, and we’ve put a lot of emphasis on consulting with client departments. PWS has put a lot of emphasis on consulting with client departments on what they’re looking at. And then a lot of consulting is done around programming that’s going to be in these facilities, and I think that in doing so, maybe we have gone a little too far the other way.
If you have a chance to build a major piece of capital infrastructure, it would be nice if it was reflective of the area. There are a lot of things that would be nice, but given the demands on our capital budget, I think we have to think a little bit more about utility, and certainly we need to think about the ongoing costs of operating those facilities. The O&M piece can soon add up in years to come, so the integration of more standardized design and engineering of buildings will help steer away from perhaps some architectural features that might cost us a lot. Also, we need to think about conservation and efficiency of buildings. We need to think about how much we need to spend at the front end to ensure that we aren’t paying exorbitant operation and maintenance costs on an ongoing basis. So those are things that I think it would be very prudent of our government to consider when it comes to our capital.
With that, Mr. Chairman, like I said, I’m sure other Members have things they’d like to raise and points they would like to elaborate on with respect to the interim appropriation, so I’ll leave my general comments at that. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, as Mrs. Groenewegen has pointed out, the interim appropriation is one where it will give us time to work on our main estimates process and give us the time to do a proper review of the steps we would like to take as the 16th Assembly.
The O&M as highlighted is fairly straightforward, as the Member has pointed out, in capturing what we require to run for the three months of this interim appropriation.
The capital plan is one where it is different. Initially a plan went to the departments, requesting what would be required in a full year, looking at the timing of our process, so that contracts could be let in a timely fashion in order to get materials ordered and construction done. So we went out with that initial process, met with committee, and after review with committee and looking at some of the items, we went back to departments to request what was required as an absolute during this time, what could be later left to the May/June budget session, and came back with the revised document and are presenting that now at this point.
As well, we’re in full agreement with the whole capital plan process. As a government we’ve realized, in looking at the supplementary appropriations, for example, of the past government, that the final supplementary appropriation has grown significantly, a large part of that being capital carryovers for one reason or another. So we’ve initiated an infrastructure committee to review that whole process of looking at how we get capital done in the North, at the timing that contracts are let, the whole process of when a capital infrastructure plan should be tabled and voted on. So there’s a whole number of things that will be incorporated into this process.
As well, I agree with the capital planning itself on structures, the type of design. We need to look at the way we do that and how we carry forward with that within a tight fiscal environment.
One of the other challenges we find and that the Member has pointed out is that we’re challenged that many of our trades people in the North are being offered lucrative employment in other jurisdictions and, as well, contracting companies. Many of our larger companies that used to do some of our larger projects in the Northwest Territories have now moved on to other jurisdictions and are not putting in tender packages or RFPs for a number of our projects, so that is also an area of concern when we talk about competition in the Northwest Territories. That’s all having an effect on us, and we do need to deal with that. We will be coming forward with recommendations as that committee does its work. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am in agreement with my colleague Mrs. Groenewegen in her comments, but I would like to make a few of my own. I’ve mentioned previously that I feel there’s a necessity for us to take a different mentality in regard to our budgeting and our fiscal planning.
I spoke the other day about living within our means and establishing a budget which more closely reflects the actual costs that this government incurs over a year’s period. I know this is an interim appropriation, but I want to re-emphasize that it is extremely important that we change the way we budget, in my view. I would hope to see that when we get our full budget in May/June, the numbers are much closer to reality and that supplementary appropriations become a thing of the past, used only if absolutely necessary in an emergency situation.
I wanted to comment on the Minister’s remarks. He states on the first page that the capital investment expenditure amount reflects the full-year requirements for projects currently under construction, projects that need to be tendered. And then on the last page he states that the $110.291 million in the capital investment expenditures represents a 4.7 per cent increase from the 2007-2008 capital plan.
I’m concerned that if the capital expenditures that we’re approving as part of this interim appropriation are not the full amount of capital that’s required for ‘08-09 because it’s only those items which are under contract or safety measures or are ongoing, we’re already a 4.7 per cent increase over last year’s capital. So when the full budget comes forward in May/June, how much more are we liable to spend on capital? I would like an explanation of that statement.
To the report from committee. I totally endorse the statement that we need an overhaul of the entire capital planning process. I think that’s been mentioned more than once. I just wanted to reiterate that as well.
Lastly, my concern about energy efficiency planning is that we are being proactive and not reactive. I would like to emphasize that as well. There is a statement in the report from committee which says, “Energy efficiency does not appear to be a consistent component of new infrastructure design.”
I am in total agreement with that and would hope that the government would be moving forward with a coordinated plan to minimize our expenditures in terms of energy and efficiency and so on.
I will have some questions later on. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bisaro is correct in the process that we are undertaking. At least at this stage the interim process is a feature of how we do business. We don’t see it too often in the life of a government, and this allows us to then have a very good look at the way we do our budgeting, the exercises we go through, and to make the required changes as we would like to see it as Members of the 16th Assembly. That is why we are doing the interim appropriation process.
The capital plan is one where we also realize that we’ll need to move ahead with key projects; for example, in areas where there’s only barge service, where materials for construction need to be done during the summer operations and, as we heard from Mrs. Groenewegen earlier, the fact that building in winter drives costs up.
The 4.7 per cent increase over the ‘07-08 amount is due to the increased cost of materials and labour that have been estimated in the process. As well, some projects that are highlighted for safety issues for moving on with agreements that have been reached have been addressed through this process as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Something fairly quick. I’m just learning the process of appropriation. The Minister’s opening remarks for the bill indicate all of the areas where the interim appropriation is exceeding one-quarter or one-third of the budget, 32 per cent of the budget. The various reasons for why these areas exceed 33 per cent of the budget all seem to be that contracts had to be put in place.
I was just wondering if the Minister could explain to me why there has to be an appropriation prior to contracts being in place, and if there wasn’t another accounting method that can be used to still put the contracts in place with the understanding that the appropriation would be coming with a full budget.
Mr. Chairman, the process we used was, as Members highlighted, using one-third of the amount we would normally use during a fiscal year. The reason there are some areas of going over would be, for example, if we’re going to enter leases for facilities or renew any of our existing leases through, for example, Public Works and Services. They have to enter into agreements for a full year, and it would be difficult to try to do a month-by-month process. Some of the contracts, as-and-when contracts, as we go out to people for work during the summer into the year require an annual appropriation. For Municipal and Community Affairs, for example, because they fund their regional operations in their first quarter to a large amount, that’s why they’d get more of their dollars.
The exercise we go through and the reason we do that is, for example…. Well, the rule would be that without the authority to spend the money from this House, departments could not enter beyond the month-by-month situation. So no department can spend dollars unless this House has given approval, and that’s been taken into consideration when there are contractual obligations that run beyond the first three months of our operation. Thank you.
I certainly want to start by endorsing the comments of Mrs. Groenewegen earlier in the report from the committee. I’m in full agreement with many of the issues raised there. I think I also see many opportunities to achieve cost reductions and so on through energy efficiency and local production of energy that creates revenue and so on.
Improving capital planning. I think that’s been discussed. It’s well known now that we need a tune-up there, and I heard the government is going to work on that.
I also hear from constituents who are employees and contractors with the government that there’s a lot of hoarding of O&M budgets to try and come in under budget, way under budget even, and so on. That is really at the cost of delivery of programs. So I think that’s one highlight, one heads-up, that I’d like to see our upper managers have in mind as we go forward: to be spending efficiently and so on in there.
I also have appreciated the information provided by the Minister in preliminary discussions that have got us to this point. I have increased my understanding and answered some of my questions along the way.
I’d really like to take this opportunity to speak positively for a second here on the decision to include, to this point, funding for the territorial dementia facility. Dementia is really an incredibly sad condition that can affect people across the Northwest Territories. It’s a very difficult disease and takes a terrible toll on families, often requiring 24-hour constant supervision and so on. Probably in the majority of cases this is being done by families and relatives with little support and often no respite for the caregivers. Eventually this takes a toll on the health of people doing this care, and in fact, people often end up sending these patients south at a very high expense, but it’s necessary for proper care and so on.
I would like to note that in this case we have a record of non-government organizations like the Yellowknife Association of Concerned Citizens for Seniors and they are doing good work in the meantime and also doing work towards this facility, planning and so on, in conjunction with private enterprise in town and with the government to date. So I want to recognize that and note that this is the opportunity to take advantage of the work and dedication of many of those people and organizations.
I’d also note that one of the related sister facilities, if you will, the Aven Manor residential facility for elders, hosts residents from across the Northwest Territories, including, of course, Fort Good Hope and Tulita, Fort Resolution, Deline, and many others.
The dementia facility is incredibly expensive, and it’s expensive because it’s meeting a highly-specialized need. Currently, in the absence of such a facility, people who are suffering from dementia are housed at actually much greater cost, in many cases in hospitals and other inappropriate but very expensive, facilities.
So I’d just like to heartily endorse the decision to put some of our capital resources into that facility. I look forward to going over the bill in more detail here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the Member for his words in this area and the interest he has for the facilities we have dealing with those seniors in the Northwest Territories — elders and working with the groups. I think the dementia facility is an example of a partnership between the government, NGOs and industry to make this possible. It’s that type of program — thinking outside the box — that allows this to happen. If we were to stick to our typical process, it would be much more problematic to do this and come up with a cost-effective way of doing this type of work.
Our experience in the North has been, when we look at areas of repatriation, that if we don’t have the facility in the North, we send people south for many of the needs that we can’t deliver in the Northwest Territories. Bringing them back to the Northwest Territories, where we’re building facilities and operating them, proves to be in most cases more expensive than doing it in other ways. But we do realize there’s a growing population. There are some of these services that we can bring back to the North, at least to one community or a few if that’s possible in the future. This project is one of those that aligns itself with a partnership with organizations, but it’s not without its challenges. Let’s put it that way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’d like to thank the Minister of Finance, FMBS and the Premier for being here this afternoon to discuss the interim appropriation. I just have a few comments.
I don’t want to go over everything. I agree with much of what my colleagues have been saying, especially when it comes to energy efficiency and the capital planning process, which I certainly would endorse needs to be addressed. I also would strongly back up the opinion of my colleagues that Regular Members need to be included in the discussion on revamping the capital acquisition or infrastructure acquisition planning process here in the government of the Northwest Territories. We need to be at the table when that’s discussed. I’m not sure which vehicle that may take. I know we need to find a way to be included and not excluded from that process.
A couple of observations, I guess, if I could. I don’t want to go over everything, but the dementia facility here in Yellowknife is kind of out of the box in terms of a way of getting a piece of public infrastructure built. It’s a much-needed facility, and I echo the comments Mr. Bromley had earlier. We need to move forward with this much-needed piece of infrastructure.
We seem to be always spending money on this FIS system and software and other things associated with the Financial Information System of the government of the Northwest Territories. I’ve been around now for five years, and it seems to me that every year there’s a substantial amount of dollars, millions of dollars, being spent in this area of our operation. I have trouble understanding why we’re still getting reports that are printed on antiquated, out-of-date systems. During this last summer we got a copy of the contracts report over $5,000. It came to us in a format that they were using in the 1980s, it seems to me. Where are we spending this money on the Financial Information System?
I would agree, Mr. Chairman, that we need to spend the money, but when are we going to get the evidence that the money that we’re spending is actually making a difference and we are going to have access to financial information at the drop of a dime? I’m talking about specific, detailed information that right now, to be honest with you, Mr. Chairman, I don’t think we can just pull off just like that. I might be mistaken, but I don’t think I am. I really do believe we need to look at this area, especially in terms of getting the information. It’s going to be money well spent, but I’m just trying to understand why we’re spending all the money and we’re still having these reports that aren’t what I think a government the size of the Northwest Territories should be producing, Mr. Chairman.
I’d just be going over old ground if I continued on, Mr. Chairman, so with that, I’ll leave it at that.
The capital infrastructure piece is one, yes, that we agree needs to be seriously looked at and to make some adjustments, possibly a complete revamping. For example, instead of doing a combined O&M and capital infrastructure project, is it more effective if we separate the two so that contractors have enough advance time to bid on a program, to get materials sent up and delivered into those communities in a time frame that allows for summer construction, not winter construction? That review needs to happen.
We’ve got together the Cabinet Infrastructure Committee and we’ve got the correspondence from committee now requesting involvement in that, and we’ll review that.
The FIS system is something that is old. It is antiquated. In fact, much of the expenditures in past years have been trying to keep that system operational. That is why you see the large amount of dollars here to actually fully replace that system. It is a mainframe system, but it does not deal with the contracts report the Member has spoken about. That is still produced out of the Department of ITI with their systems. But as we proceed forward, many of our mainframe systems and those that are across departments are to ensure that the information fits into the FIS so that we can produce those reports in a timely fashion and be able to work with a newer system.
Do the Members agree that there are no further general comments and we can proceed? Are we agreed that we continue on with page 3 of the supplementary appropriation? Clause by clause of the interim appropriation?
Agreed.
Under detail, Schedule 1, Operations Expenditures, Legislative Assembly, appropriation authorized request: $4.927 million.
Schedule 1, Operations Expenditures, Legislative Assembly, $4,927,000 approved.
Does everybody have their documents? We’re on tab 1, page 3, Schedule 1, Operations Expenditures, department number 2, Executive Offices, including Human Resources, Aboriginal Affairs and Intergovernmental Relations, Financial Management Board Secretariat, $36 million, appropriation authorized request: $36,254,000.
Executive, $36,254,000 approved.
Finance, appropriation authorization request: $4,234,000.
Finance, $4,234,000 approved.
Municipal and Community Affairs, appropriation authorization request: $59,258,000.
Municipal and Community Affairs, $59,258,000 approved.
Page 4. Mr. Ramsay.
Mr. Chairman, I just have a question. It’s just backing up a little bit to the department of the Executive, if we could go back there. I seek unanimous consent to go back to the department of the Executive.
Unanimous consent granted.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In looking at possible reductions, we’ve got the Department of Intergovernmental Relations, Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Human Resources. Would the government not be wise to look at having one deputy minister of the Executive to oversee the operations of those departments, and not necessarily a deputy minister for each of those departments and everything else associated with that?
Excuse me. Mr. Ramsay, could you repeat the last part of your sentence? Your mic went off.
Mr. Chairman, again, in an effort to reduce spending, I’m just wondering why we wouldn’t look at having one deputy minister for the department of the Executive. Then you wouldn’t require the DMs of the departments inside the department of the Executive, and you could do without ADMs and DMs at those levels as well — there and HR. Why don’t we do it with just one DM? That’s the question.
The Minister Responsible for the FMBS, Mr. Roland.
Mr. Chairman, as we highlighted with the interim appropriation, we’re proceeding for the status quo for the first three months. As we review how we need to budget in areas where we can save funding and look at the investments, we’ll follow through on the next phase of our work. Some of that is being looked at. A number of these areas….
The Member asked about combining a couple of secretaries for departments. That is something that can be reviewed when we talk about refocusing-government, as well as looking across departmental initiatives. Again, we look forward to the Members’ work that they’re putting together and their recommendations. As we get our work done and provide that to Members, we expect we’ll get some recommendations as well in what we’ve put together.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the Premier for his comments. As long as we’re not leaving any stone unturned, I suppose, and we’re looking at everything. That would be good. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, the work that we’re undergoing for the 16th Assembly — looking at dealing with the fiscal environment we’re in, knowing we need to cap the growth, reduce our overall expenditures, and try to find dollars for reinvestment — is going to cause us to look long and hard and deep at how we do business. That work is starting. Again, we’ll be working with Members and coming up with recommendations that we can bring forward to a budget process.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. We can go back to page 4, Public Works and Services, Department of Public Works and Services, appropriation authority required: $21,029,000.
Public Works and Services, $21,029,000 approved.
