Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank Mr. Miltenberger for that explanation. I do concur with him that there were some almost statements of fact about these taxes having been a foregone conclusion on this side of the House today. So if you perceived that, I hear you; I did perceive that a little bit too.

They are only options at this time. But we want to get in there and tell you that any — or tell Mr. Speaker; I don’t want to speak directly to the Minister. But we would like to make sure that this government clearly understands that it would be the

preference under the tax options to be taxing multinational companies who are here harvesting our resources rather than the residents of the Northwest Territories who are struggling with the cost of living. Would Mr. Miltenberger agree that that would be preferable? Thank you.

I, as well, have been getting a number of comments and feedback on my e-mails and from wherever I happen to be going. As a government we are very sensitive to the implications of any decision we make with regard to taxes or reductions. We’ve been directed very clearly, and the message from the last budget process was that reductions weren’t the favoured option. So we’ve come forward with plans to look at other revenue options so that we don’t have to necessarily increase the number of reductions we’re talking about.

Yes, we are very sensitive to this, and we want to make sure that we don’t further drive up the cost of living for members in the communities. We have set up special initiative committees to in fact look at the cost of living. We don’t want to be counterproductive here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s going to be no surprise that I’m going to be asking my questions to the Premier, and they are going to be about senior management bonuses in the Northwest Territories. I seem to ask this question every time we come into a new session.

In light of the fact that we’re proposing all sorts of potential tax increases and we are looking for money to help run programs and services, I am wondering why we are still giving bonuses out to senior managers with no rationale. It seems like every senior manager gets a bonus.

In the last session I asked the Premier about how many of the senior managers are getting bonuses, and I got a written response that indicated that all senior managers who were eligible in ’04–05 got it. All seniors who were eligible in ’05–06 got it, all but two in ’05–06, and all but one in ’06–07. I guess my question today is: have we given bonuses to senior managers for the ’07–08 fiscal year, and if so, how many got it? Of the ones who got…. Actually, I’ll stop there and let Mr. Roland answer.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The Hon. Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that as the Government of the Northwest Territories we hear about the challenges that we face in recruitment and keeping our staff. The merit pay system is something that has to be taken into consideration. In our life, as the 16th Legislative

Assembly, that has not occurred as of yet, but we are undergoing a process of reviewing that scenario now.

I acknowledge that bonuses are in fact important. I just don’t think everybody should get a bonus. I think bonuses should be earned for exceptional performance, or performance above and beyond, not for doing your job. That’s what you get paid for. If you look at the number of individual senior managers who are getting it, it’s clear that virtually every senior manager gets a bonus every year.

Last session I talked to the Premier, and we talked about the possibility of putting in a process where bonuses would be based on exceptional performance. Has the Premier made any progress in putting in a policy related to ensuring that bonuses are based on exceptional performance?

Mr. Speaker, through the Department of Human Resources along with the Executive, we have been looking at, for example, the federal initiative that was undertaken regarding merit pay. We are working with that program. As I said, we have not concluded the process yet. We are almost a year into our mandate. So it is something that is under consideration, and we will be coming up with a decision very soon here. It is something that we have to recognize, though. Yes, we need to be doing something based on merit, and we have to also recognize that we need to try to be competitive in a whole lot of areas, along with wages. Thank you.

I am not sure I understood that exactly. Does that mean that yes, something is being done or a policy is being put in place to ensure that all senior managers who are getting bonuses will have deserved it through exceptional performance?

Mr. Speaker, the process we are involved with right now is one we’ve looked at in the federal system, and that would be a substantial increase in salaries, and then reduce the merit pay. But we are not prepared to give a substantial increase in salaries to our senior staff, so we are looking within our existing framework to put something together. I would be prepared to sit down with Members at the appropriate time to go through details of a review. Thank you.

Oral questions. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government is flirting with a trend to encourage business as well as people to leave. We’ve all heard about the silo of government, and I am just curious. I’m just trying to get a sense. Does the Finance Minister, Minister Miltenberger, understand that there is a cost of living committee out there?

My question to the Minister of Finance is: how do his potential tax initiatives dovetail with the cost of living committee, which is intended to lower the cost of living of the average citizen up here? How does it dovetail? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The revenue options that are being talked about are two taxes that have been referred to, resource taxes. There is potential for payroll tax increases. There is potential for other taxes, like taxing further alcohol and tobacco. We are also looking at revenue options that include signing up for the Territorial Nominee Program for immigration that would allow us to bring, at the very least, 150 new people to the North every year to take the jobs that are currently going vacant. As well, we are looking at working with the mines through the SEAs to start capturing the fly in/fly out population. So they dovetail very nicely.

We’re also as a government, as the Premier indicated, prepared to invest significant amounts of money through having a balanced budget, being able to get the revenues and reduce government costs to make significant investments in alternate energy: wind, biomass, mini-hydro, expansion of the hydro grid. Those are all things that are going to directly impact, in the mid and long term, the cost of living in communities. So there’s a very good dovetailing fit.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister is all well and good, but we have to assume someone can still be here to be able to afford those.

This is starting to look like a tax shift, just like the Liberal plan by Dion. We’re going to tax on one end but encourage both on the other. It’s confusing, it’s ridiculous, and I think it affects the bottom line of common-sense people at their kitchen tables.

Looking at the blend between the tax initiatives and the cost of living, what effort is this Minister putting in to make sure government is functioning properly through a program review that looks at the basis of how we spend our money?

In the last budget there were funds identified and voted to set up a

program review committee as part of the Refocusing Government initiative. We’re going to be coming forward with a plan, as the Premier indicated, about restructuring boards and agencies.

The issue of tax shifts. If we can move away from income taxes and taxes on that type of income to consumption taxes, I think that’s a good shift. And we want to look at making sure that those with the most are going to be prepared to pay more than those who have the least.

But very clearly, we have a whole number of initiatives that are tied in to this particular effort.

Mr. Speaker, would the Finance Minister agree a good place to start, when he considers his tax initiatives and the cost of living, would be maybe to start collecting on some of the IOUs — that money owed to us by the federal government, that $100 million of health money for NIHB? Wouldn’t that be a good start to this rather than firing people or adding new taxes?

Mr. Speaker, we’re talking about a government that’s going to be affordable. We’re talking about looking at revenues that currently haven’t been realized, like trying to grow the population.

We’ve been tasked to try to hit targets. The Members have indicated, through the last process, that doing it all on the backs of reductions of expenditures and programs is not the way they’re prepared to consider. So we’re looking at other options.

So, Mr. Speaker, we’re trying to be as broad thinking about this and as careful and as measured as we can be.

Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Speaker, who is really going to pay this? It’s not going to be the rich, because they can afford those big, fancy accountants. It’s not going to be the poor, because they don’t have anything to take. So this is going to keep coming down to the middle class groups that will keep paying this.

And you know what? You haven’t broadened the base. I’ve not heard of one single initiative in my lifetime so far out of this Finance Minister that will see us broaden the base. What is he planning to do for us to see real results in broadening the tax base of people of the Northwest Territories?

I’ve been Finance Minister for July, August, September, two months of which the Member was on holidays and I was working. But rest assured, Mr. Speaker, the intent is…. I’ll ask the Member for some indulgence here, not to get ahead of the process. We’ve asked for

feedback. We’re going to come back with what we’ve heard. We’re going to look at the whole gambit of options that we have, and we want to lay that out and we want to have the full discussion with committee to make the right decisions. There are going to be tough decisions to be sure. We have a very high level of service in this territory and a government that is providing those services, and we have to be prepared to look at all those things.

I will just ask the Member to allow the process to run its course so that we can actually put something definitive on the table to have an informed discussion on.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Finance.

It was a year ago today that Members were elected to the 16th Legislative Assembly, and shortly

thereafter we got together as a group of 19 MLAs and went through a strategic planning exercise where we tried to map out a strategy for the next four years.

One of the main concerns during that meeting was the cost of living and how the government spent its money. Many Members, I remember, were asking for a zero based review and program evaluations, and here we are a year later. Earlier the government had committed to a reduction exercise of $135 million over two years, and as far as I know, they’re not going to come anywhere close to that reduction number. I find it ironic that now they’re looking at finding an additional $40 million out of taxation.

So I’d like to ask the Minister of Finance why program evaluations and review of government spending government-wide wasn’t conducted prior to engaging the public and engaging Members of this side of the House on these new tax initiatives. To me it’s backwards. We should examine our spending first, Mr. Speaker. Mahsi.