Mr. Speaker, I’ve had the chance to do a small review of the Budget Address heard last week, and a number of statements in the address made me go, “Huh?” I’d like to discuss a few of those and the questions they raised in my mind.

We had some communication last week about how the government is accommodating employees who have been affected by budget reductions. There seems to be a genuine desire on the part of the government to make the transition as easy as possible, but where are the actions that show us that desire? I haven’t seen anything.

The Minister of Human Resources said that GNWT policies don’t allow certain actions that could better accommodate staff whose positions are being reduced — early retirement, for example. I would think that if the government is serious about needing to reduce positions, we would be looking at every available possibility to smooth the way. Surely we can amend policies or, at the very least, agree to waive them for a specified period of time to accomplish the easy accommodation of our affected employees. After all, it seems the government writes the policies.

The Budget Address indicated that there are plans for approximately $500 million of capital investments over the next four years but that we will only incur $17 million in debt in doing so. I suggest that we would be better off retaining the 111 affected positions set to be reduced and use more of our borrowing power to pay for the capital investments.

Page B2 of the address document includes a graph titled Revenue and Expenditure Growth. It shows revenues increasing faster than expenditures, at least to my eye, and contradicts the Finance Minister’s statement that expenses are outgrowing our revenues. I am unable to reconcile the words and the picture.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I am particularly disappointed in three aspects of this budget: that there is no new revenue source; that budget reductions seem to target jobs first, not as a last resort; that there is no coordinated approach from the government for the consideration of saving the environment — reducing greenhouse gas emissions, for example; energy planning; and minimizing climate change through all of our programs and services. Energy conservation, climate change prevention and mitigation should be at the front of and integral to everything that we do as a government: new buildings, roads, bridges, economic development, utility costs — everything.

As I mentioned in my statement last week, few departmental budget briefings presented a good

rationale or justification for the content of their budget. I hope to see that information during budget debate. I need convincing that the various departments’ proposals are the right ones. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.