Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So then, from what the Minister has told us, the intent was and still is to have a cheaper service for privatization, and that the monies saved by the department really is to go towards the debt. So, it is not a true example of privatization. From my understanding, the department, as you have told me before, reduced three positions and also there was expenditure savings as far as office space and related costs. I think that figure was ballparked at around $400,000. So is it fair to say then that the contractor is providing a cheaper service, but the government is still charging for the fees that they charged before, and it is kind of a tax on this portion that the department is using for other internal operations?
Seamus Henry on Committee Motion 2-13(5): To Amend Committee Motion 1-13(5)
In the Legislative Assembly on October 23rd, 1997. See this statement in context.
Committee Motion 2-13(5): To Amend Committee Motion 1-13(5)
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
October 23rd, 1997
Page 143
Seamus Henry Yellowknife South
See context to find out what was said next.