Mr. Speaker, I listened today to the Premier’s Budget Address with some interest. There were a lot of positive things in there, but at the beginning of the 16th Assembly we were informed that reductions were needed and that we had to live within our means or we would be in a dire financial situation down the road. I wanted to buy into that argument and believed we would have good-quality input into the whole budget process. Mr. Speaker, I was wrong.
We also said youth were our priority, and then we sent out proposed affected employee letters to rec coordinators. Is that showing them how important we thought their work was to us? These are people who serve the youth not because it’s their job but because they want to.
As a Regular Member, I thought my input was going to be important and would be a part of the whole budget process. I found out differently. I was not part of the whole process. I still believe — in listening to the financial situation of this government down the road — that reductions are needed, but I think good, thought-out reductions that come from 19 Members are reflective of what we hear from the residents. We have to listen to those voices. I don’t think these reductions should be coming from bureaucrats who are intent on protecting their backsides. At the end of the day they don’t have to wear the reductions back in their community.
We are, as the Premier said, a territory with immense opportunities, and we have to fight hard to ensure our people, not Ottawa, are the major beneficiaries of those opportunities. As a Member of the community most affected by the reductions, I will struggle with the whole budget process as it is presented unless changes are made. When I look at the big picture, I see we have to reduce our spending and live within our means, and I still think this is possible.
As the elected Member for Inuvik, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
Unanimous consent granted.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, colleagues. As the elected Member for Inuvik, I promised to protect the residents of Inuvik. If I let the reductions to employees go without a fight, then I’ve lied to these people. I think I’ve let them down. I look forward to the debate we will have, line by line, and will do whatever I can to make sure the people I represent are protected and well looked after.
The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
I, too, would like to speak today about the budget process the government has followed that leads us up to where we’re at today.
Just several months ago, on October 1, Members of the 16th Legislative Assembly were elected. Shortly thereafter we got together to develop a strategic plan and vision on behalf of the residents of the Northwest Territories.
I want to let my constituents and the public know that this process has not been inclusive of Regular Members, and it absolutely runs contrary to the spirit and intent of consensus government. If I could, I would like to point out a few examples of how this government has, in my view, effectively taken away the input of 11 Regular Members and thus the voice of two-thirds of our population to develop a budget. That is their budget: not mine, not my constituents’, but Cabinet’s and the bureaucracy that crafted it.
I can point to a number of instances where Regular Members have been on the outside of this process. It began with Cabinet’s decision to cut $135 million and re-invest millions in strategic initiatives. Part of the plan called for 135 positions to be potentially impacted. The Premier and the government assured us in February, when we were last here, that they would let us know which positions and areas were being targeted for reductions before any decisions were made. We all know that the notification letters went out, and Members were left fielding calls from constituents who had received these letters.
Regular Members were left out to dry by Cabinet. We had no prior knowledge of which positions would be affected or the justification for such moves. It took us over three weeks to finally get a summary of affected positions from the government. In a consensus government like this, this should never have happened. It’s inexcusable.
We routinely ask, as Regular Members, to be included but are continually brushed aside. Where were Regular Members when the Building Canada Fund funding list was developed? Where were Regular Members when Cabinet was divvying up eco-Trust dollars? Where were Regular Members when Cabinet decided to re-invest millions of dollars? The answer is, we’re not party to any of these discussions. I’m left feeling very uneasy about a budget process....
Mr. Ramsay, your time for Members’ statements has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
Unanimous consent granted.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am feeling very uneasy about a budget process that has not been inclusive of Regular Members, one where I don’t believe my input as a Member — or the input of my constituents — has been taken to heart by the government.
Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a very interesting few weeks that we have here. I do look forward to the debate that is going to take place. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
It’s a relief that, finally, I can talk publicly about the 2008–2009 budget. As a new MLA, the development of this budget has been an interesting and thought-provoking experience but, unfortunately, not one I wish to repeat if the process and the outcomes are the same.
Last December this Assembly agreed on goals and priorities and sent Cabinet away to produce a budget for us based on those goals. I had high — some would say naïvely high — hopes that I could have some influence on the development of this budget, that my input would be sought and respected. I’m sad to say that I don’t feel that has happened.
In the last five months, more than once I've been made to feel that the government was doing as they please with little concern for me and my colleagues. Perhaps that was not the intention, but that was the perception of Members on this side of the House. And if we feel that we were not respected, then for sure the public feels the same way.
Some examples.... The government has presented us with figures that show revenues increasing at 3 per cent per year and expenditures increasing at 6 per cent per year. I agree that such a situation is untenable and can’t continue, but, to quote a constituent, “the government has not advised its constituents why the territory is suddenly faced with a huge deficit.”
In department briefings few reductions were presented with adequate rationale to justify them, but there was an expectation we would accept them.
There’s been a noticeable lack of opportunity for input into the development of the budget from Regular MLAs, despite repeated requests. I feel as though I’ve had no hand in this budget.
On several occasions the government released information to the public or communicated with constituents before the same information was provided to Regular MLAs. I can only interpret that as a lack of respect for me as a Regular Member.
There’s been little consideration of the suggestions for changes to the budget from Regular MLAs. The mind of the government has seemingly been closed to budget possibilities other than those that have come from Cabinet.
I’ve struggled with the content of this budget. I believe in our priorities, and this Assembly should focus efforts and money on them, but this budget doesn’t seem to do that. Where’s the analysis of the programs and services that would provide justification? The reductions seem random, not reasoned; neither well thought out nor well researched.
The Premier has said several times publicly that job cuts would be a last resort in achieving the necessary budget reductions; 135 affected positions is not a last resort, in my estimation.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
Unanimous consent granted.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, colleagues.
One hundred thirty-five affected positions is not a last resort, in my estimation. I’m left feeling that the government has acted in a high-handed manner: job cuts already in place and funding for programs deleted as of April 1, well before the budget is approved.
The following quote appeared in a northern newspaper last month, and I have to agree with it: “It” — job cuts — “would imply that the decision-making process is being done outside of the formal budget process.”
Yes, it was only notification of possible job losses, but the public interprets such actions to mean that the budget is final, that it’s a done deal, even before we debate it in the House. There’s a saying that perception is nine-tenths of the law, and the government would be well advised to remember that in the future.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
