Floyd Roland

Mr. Speaker, I ask one thing for the record. In his Member’s statement the Member referenced the fact that we would be making cuts on the backs of employees. That is not the process we are using. The target isn't whether we are going to take out a certain number or percentage of employees. It’s just a matter of process.

The target we're working with is looking at the programs we deliver and whether they are providing or delivering what they were identified to be delivering, or what they were structured to deliver — looking at those programs and reprioritizing that money or using it in other...

Mr. Speaker, when I talked about looking at the process, I was looking at the project timelines, information that flowed between particular departments to committees, to this Assembly — whether it was through supplementary process — and decisions made right to the point of the concession agreement being signed.

Mr. Speaker, for the record, we have to state that but for the fact that this concession agreement was signed as late as it was, it is politically one that is being debated. The fact is that the numbers being used today were shared with Members of the past Assembly prior to that...

I’m aware, because of our discussions around the concession agreement, that they do have their equity in place — again, not to the $5 million. I believe they’re right around the $4 million mark. They have a partner that’s partnered up with them, along with themselves and another corporation within, I believe, Fort Providence. I would have to work with them to ensure I can sit down and provide the information to Members. I’m not sure if I can make it public at this point.

Mr. Speaker, one simple way of doing it is never to enact another piece of legislation that drives one particular project. That is an avenue, so that would always come before Members of the House. But like every act we’ve put in place, that act, once passed, becomes a living document of the Assembly, and Assemblies to come, until it’s removed from the books.

The review that I committed to…. We will have it done very soon, and I’ll be able to share that with Members and sit down with them at that point.

As I stated earlier, I already approached my Territorial colleagues, and I approached the provincial Finance Ministers. We addressed it at the Finance Ministers’ meeting before Christmas, and I followed up with a letter, so we’re waiting for their response. I’ve been to the federal Finance department to see if they would be looking at it.

As well, for the record, as is pointed out by the Member, we’ve had our MP in Ottawa make mention of this, address it in Parliament. Unfortunately, the result from that process was not a positive one, and I’m not sure if that will have an impact on our...

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that during the normal review of our public accounts, the Auditor General looks at the accounts of this government and requests information from time to time when they see something they’d like to pay some attention to. The loan guarantee in this amount has been looked at and information has been requested, and we’re working with her office to provide that information.

I’ve also committed to Members to provide information around this project and am getting that together so that I can provide that information to Members.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, that work has been done. In my role as Finance Minister I’ve contacted Northern Premiers and then went beyond to other Finance Ministers across the country. At the meeting we had before Christmas with the Minister of Finance for Canada, Minister Flaherty, I put that on the table as well as followed up with a letter to him, and I’m waiting for a response.

Mr. Speaker, first let’s take care of one of the rumours that are out there. The reduction scenario that we’re planning to work around and targeting is not the funded Deh Cho Bridge project. Some have heard rumours out there, so let’s clear that out of the way.

The fact is that the legislation that was developed and passed through this House defined the parameters of the project. The parameters talked about a number of factors. Those factors have been made public, as we’ve heard already. Members have been briefed on a number of those areas.

There is a provision that would come back, for example...

Mr. Speaker, we can provide, from our side, the information and get it out there. It would be those communities that are affected by a decision like this — Providence, Yellowknife and some of the other communities. We can share that information.

When we talk about the overall project of $165 million, when you look at the government’s piece of it outside of the O&M cost…. When you look at that additional cost, at the end of 35 years the additional investment would be more in the area of $70 million, and tolls would be paying for the rest.

The cost of living is an important factor in the Northwest Territories, as I stated earlier. We do have to look at how we try to either slow the cost drivers that are involved in delivering energy in the Northwest Territories or, in fact, change the way we develop power.

There are a number of things we can look at, as I talked about: a continued expansion of hydroelectricity in the Northwest Territories; or, for example, when the Mackenzie pipeline is built, we can run gas in the communities and displace the diesel fuel that's being used, as a potential option.

One of the other areas, which the...