Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my Member’s statement, we are currently faced with $135 million in budget reductions over the next two years. My question is to the Premier. I believe the departments have been tasked by cabinet to identify areas for reduction. What criteria were provided to the departments to assist them in identifying areas for reduction? Thank you.

Mr.

Speaker, the G.N.W.T. is

currently faced with reducing spending by $135 million over the next two years. Through this process, we need to be cautious. We need to ensure that reductions don't adversely affect the public or staff. At the very least we need to minimize these impacts as much as possible. We need to spend wisely and maximize the benefit of the dollars we spend.

So where do we look? One area we might want to consider is the bonuses that we pay. Last year this government paid $1.6 million in bonuses. The majority of these went to 16 deputy ministers and 176 senior managers.

Deputy ministers in this government make an average of $184,000 a year, while senior managers make an average of $127,000 a year. In addition, the Power Corp paid out $532,930 in bonuses last year.

I’m not suggesting that bonuses don't have value. I’m simply suggesting that we need to review them to ensure that we're getting best value per dollar.

This government may want to review its criteria for awarding bonuses. We may get better value for our dollars if bonuses were provided to all employees — not just DMs and senior managers — who identify real and effective ways to reduce spending and create efficiencies within the public service. Two point one million dollars is equivalent to around 21 public service jobs.

Let’s make sure all options are considered before jobs are cut.

I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Frame Lake, that Motion 5-16(2) be amended as follows:

By inserting the words “communities that rely on diesel-generated power in” in paragraph 12 immediately after the words “consideration of levelized power rates for”;

AND FURTHER: By inserting the words “for communities that rely on diesel-generated power” in paragraph 14 immediately after the words “on a levelized rate structure.”

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the vagueness and hypothetical nature of my previous question. I’ve tried to reword the question so it’s clear and that it’s actually a question as opposed to a hypothetical question.

The concerns raised about the Deh Cho Bridge seem to all be about process more than the project itself. Before entering into future partnership arrangements, will the Premier commit to developing a policy and process for dealing with these types of projects in order to ensure transparency and accountability?

My questions are for the Premier, and I’m going back to talk about the bridge. As I mentioned in my previous question, there’s been a lot of talk about the bridge, and it seems it just keeps going and going. Following the experiences that we’ve gone through here, would this government consider entering into future private partner arrangements?

What about the risks to the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation compared to those of the G.N.W.T.? Isn’t the G.N.W.T. really guaranteeing this project?

There’s been some suggestion that this is not really a P3 project, in that the G.N.W.T. is doing all the work and taking all the risks. What has the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation done to warrant their involvement?

Mr. Speaker, once again to the Minister of Transportation: based on the cost-benefit analysis that recently came out — which we know is an addendum to the larger one that came out in 2002 and needs to be seen as a whole, which is available on the web site — which compares the costs and the benefits…. When you look at that, why did this government proceed with the bridge?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to break from history here, and I’m going to ask the Minister of Transportation some questions on the Deh Cho Bridge, mostly because his department is the one that released the cost-benefit analysis. The discussions on the Deh Cho Bridge have dominated the debate in this House over the last couple of weeks and couple of sessions. These concerns raised seem to be about process rather than the project itself. I sometimes think we’ve forgotten why we’re even considering this project.

I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation: what direct benefits are there to proceeding with the project and building this bridge at all? Can the

Minister please provide some clarity to me and explain what the benefits are?