Debates of May 26, 2008 (day 15)

I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that Bill 8, Appropriation Act, 2008–2009 be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Can I get you to hold your hands up, all those in favour? Appropriation Act, 2008–2009 has had first reading.

Motion carried; Bill 8, Appropriation Act, 2008–2009, read a first time.

I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that Bill 8, Appropriation Act, 2008–2009 be read for the second time. Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes the Government of the Northwest Territories to make operational expenditures and capital investment expenditures for the 2008–2009 fiscal year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The motion is on the floor. To the principle of the bill. The honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, of all the Members on this side of the House, I’m the one that should have the most concern with the budget, because it does affect the people I represent the most. However, I did make a commitment to them that I would debate line by line, page by page, delete anything I have to delete, because Inuvik is hit hard by this proposed budget. I will vote in favour of second reading just for the opportunity — and I repeat, just for the opportunity — to get it into Committee of the Whole so I can have that debate so I can do the line by line. It’s not support for this budget. Once we do the line by line, if I’m unable to affect any changes or any deletions, then I will reserve my right to vote as I see fit for the third reading of the bill.

It has been stated by some people that this could be taken as a vote of non-confidence. I disagree with that. I say to Cabinet: for my part of it, anyway, you take it as a vote of confidence. You take it as a vote of confidence that you’re going to be listening to what I have to tell you. You’re going to be listening to this side of the House. You’re not going to be basing your decision on recommendations you get from bureaucrats. You base your recommendations on the information you get from this side of the House, who got their information from the people who put us here.

Mr. Speaker, that is my take on the principle of the bill. I said again, as I said before, that I am voting in favour of getting this into Committee of the Whole. We can have our debate line by line then.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the principle of the bill. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure if this budget is worse for anybody else in the House than it is for the Tu Nedhe residents. Nothing was really taken away from the Tu Nedhe residents, because there is nothing really there to take. The budget didn’t provide anything additional.

So I, too, will stand up today and say that I will support this budget to a point where I will get it into the House to get it through second reading. Again, I’m hoping that Cabinet is listening. I know that to this point they haven’t listened to me at all. I had a whole bunch of initiatives on the table, lots of capital projects and so on. At the end of the day, there was very, very, very little provided to Tu Nedhe.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. To the principle of the bill. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Speaker, I came today to make sure my vote got recorded. That was probably the most important reason I came today. I’ve got personal reasons that should be keeping me away today, but my wife is keeping me abreast all the way through.

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to vote in favour of second reading on the simple principle of debate. The reason is — if I may steal the words of another colleague of mine — it’s going to give us the opportunity to fight like hell on a number of the lines, line by line. I welcome that opportunity.

I’m not going to pretend I’m in favour of the budget wholeheartedly. I wouldn’t want to give that impression to anyone, whether they’re in the gallery here or they’re across in those other seats. This is simply based on an accommodation of bringing it forward for the details.

As we’ve heard today from the Minister of Human Resources, they’re still working on things. They’re waiting for recommendations and details and comments from committee about possible plans on how to deal with staff. My support is really based on that, on how we deal with that.

Mr. Speaker, we have a number of days before third reading comes. I’d like to say this is my olive branch. I’d like to see the details of how these line up. It’s my belief that as we give them a few extra weeks, we’ll be able to chew a significant amount off that layoff list down to — I’m going to stay away from saying reasonable — what we can accept as a way to go forward. That said, if I don’t see that effort and commitment that we either find retirement, transfer positions, education positions or some kind of accommodation for that large number, I won’t be able to support third reading.

There are other areas that I will be raising, but I just want to let Cabinet know that I struggle with this, knowing that by supporting this budget, to some degree you support the layoffs. I don’t. I don’t support the layoffs in principle. I don’t support privatization as a principle, because I don’t think in the end anyone wins. We end up recuperating that service in the long run, and we’re no further ahead.

I don’t want to tie today up very much longer, but I will say I’m in support only in the principle for debate. I’d like to say that’s where my support ends today. Tomorrow’s a new day, budget by budget, line by line. I’m going to tell Cabinet that third reading will be the test of my resolve in this situation, because I’m uncomfortable with the plan put forward thus far. I think they still have to sell it to me. In my mind they still have to sell it to a number of Members here. Certainly I’d like to see that.

Mr. Speaker, today’s a very important vote, and I couldn’t miss it. I feel that I had to be here at all costs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the principle of the bill. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Just with regard to the bill and the budget that’s before us, I’ve given it lots of thought. I’ve read the budget documents. I’ve given them lots of thought, as I have as well to all the requests that I’ve been working with Cabinet for the past seven months. It’s been my experience as a previous Member in the 15th Assembly that often when we’re lobbying Cabinet and the Ministers on the floor of the House here, we’re talking about our issues. We’re talking about our roads, our housing issues, our health issues, our lack of teacher housing. It’s been my experience that a lot of those little things make their way into the budget. What I found to my great dissatisfaction this time around is that a lot of my issues did not make it to the budget. When I talk to my colleagues, I get passionate about it because I fought hard to get them in the budget, and I just don’t see them there.

I’ve got no ownership over the budget. I don’t know what happened to my requests. They must have gone out into the open air. I think part of the system is that the Premier is right. They make an effort to contact us and work with us, but they have to listen to us too. I just don’t feel that’s happened in this case. In fact, when I go back to my riding people phone me; they contact me and say, “Look, Kevin, did you know this is cut or this is not going to happen this year?” It’s like I’m the last to know.

That should not be the case. People expect me to be involved with government, to work along. When I don’t know stuff like that, to them it’s a negative. They think I know and approve of the actions that are before us or the actions they are faced with. That’s just not the case. I always find I’m explaining myself that I didn’t know anything about it. That doesn’t make me have good stature when I say I didn’t know about it. I should be the first to know about it.

In that sense, there are a lot of issues. I go to Fort Liard. With Highway No. 7 there, we’ve had some good initiatives over the past four or five years. We were rebasing, reconstructing those roads there. Now I find that has been discontinued. So to me that’s money gone from my riding, And where did it go? I’m not too sure what the priorities of Transportation are. They’re certainly not Highway No. 7 if they’re not going to finish this project. There’s only something like 22 kilometres left there, Mr. Speaker. It wouldn’t have taken very much to complete that.

There are several other initiatives. I was working with the last Cabinet in the last government, and it looked like we were going to get some kind of test chipsealing from the Providence junction towards Fort Simpson. I was hoping that would have made the books. Twenty kilometres is not very much for a good road that was rebuilt and restructured, got new culverts, et cetera. It wouldn’t have taken very much to chipseal 20 kilometres, but that’s not in the road. I’m really upset about that.

As well, I’m working with Housing. I still go to the communities, and people are still coming to me for their housing issues, Mr. Speaker. They’re appealing to me because the programs aren’t working. I keep telling the Housing Minister, “Look, get this appeal system up and running, because people have to be heard. They want to be heard, and there’s a gap there that needs to be filled.” They keep telling me it’s going to be in fall or sometime next year. That’s just not good enough for our constituents.

Once again, I don’t think that the government has done a good job communicating with the people. They’ve cut back. I heard it was five or six people from my riding in Nahendeh. I was working with the fellow from the UNW in Fort Simpson. He showed me it’s actually 13 positions that are really being affected that I didn’t see.

The first thing I did when I got the budget document: I opened it up, I went to my riding, and sure enough there are lots of positions gone. That’s distressing to me and my constituents. I’ve got many, many small communities, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I’ve got the most communities of all the MLAs, and they’re all small communities. The impact of the loss of even one job is about $120,000 or so. It depends if it’s a fully funded position or not. That’s dollars gone from the community. Multiply that by 13, and that’s a huge impact for my region alone.

Like my colleague from Inuvik Mr. McLeod said, his region’s been adversely impacted. I’d like to make the same argument as well. Per capita my region is being impacted quite severely. It just does not make sense to me, to my constituents, my communities or my leadership.

So I’m up here today, Mr. Speaker, to tell you I cannot support this budget. I did not have any input into it. At least I don’t see my input in the budget. For that reason, today I’m going to vote no for this budget, and I hope it fails at second reading. If not, I’ll do like Mr. McLeod says: I’m going to fight like crazy to get what I want in this budget, and I’ll do what it takes to get my needs met and my constituents represented in this budget. Mahsi cho.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The principle of the bill, the honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I cannot support the principle of the bill for this budget for many reasons. I’m going to attempt, in the time allotted today, to explain some of those reasons.

There is so much wrong with this budget that, in fact, there is more wrong with it than there is right with it. During the budget process which would follow this if this were given second reading, we only have the ability to delete. Anything that we’d like to add is only a recommendation. What would make the Cabinet listen to those recommendations now? Maybe some people are hopeful, but I’m not.

Mr. Speaker, Cabinet Ministers did not accept these recommendations when we responded to the Main Estimates. They have not, obviously, responded to the issues that have been brought forward on the floor of this House. As I mentioned in my Member’s statement, when I asked the Premier on Friday if the government would consider delaying the job cuts and the reinvestments until after a program review had been concluded, his one-word answer was “no.”

Mr. Speaker, a lot of Members have spoken to the fact that they do not recognize this budget as their budget. When I look at the reductions and the reinvestments, they are far off the mark and not recognizable to me, a person who was involved in our session when we got together to identify strategic priorities of the 16th Assembly. I don’t know how they came together, but they seem random. If you took this Budget Address document and you were a completely objective, independent observer of this, and you were asked to find a theme, a vision, a direction in this document that is concise and understandable, it would be very, very difficult to do that. It doesn’t emerge; it just doesn’t come out of the actions that are being taken and that are reflected in this budget.

Now, albeit I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, this budget was produced in a fairly short time frame, and the government did ask Regular Members to consider postponing this budget until the fall. There was concern on this side of the House, and by myself as well, that to be in office for almost an entire year without having developed a 16th Assembly budget did not seem palatable. We were reasonably confident that the departments and the people could roll up their sleeves and come back with something that would be acceptable. So for that part of it, I feel like I could take some responsibility for this not being acceptable.

However, I won’t take responsibility for the lack of responsiveness on the other side of the House. We, as Regular Members, did work hard to make sure that we had input when we knew that there was a potential for reductions. We got together and we came up with a very comprehensive and very good list of areas where we felt there could be substantial savings that would be low-impact. It would not be doing drastic things like cutting 135 positions or 80-some positions that are unoccupied right now in the public service. It did not include any measures like that.

That list was sent to the Cabinet. They said they would need time to analyze that. But that comes to the very point of what’s wrong with this budget. Neither the reinvestments nor the reductions have been properly thought out. It is not in-depth; it is random. It is not reasoned, and it is damaging. It is costly damage, not just in a monetary way but also to the lives of people who have devoted themselves to the public service and this government, to the people who are the recipients of the programs and services, and to the economies of our communities. Government jobs in communities…. Not that that’s the only reason they’re there, but certainly a side benefit of having those jobs in those communities is that they do create an economy. Communities of all sizes greatly depend on that economy. So, Mr. Speaker, there are far-reaching negative implications of this budget.

There’s also really a mixed message about this budget. The Premier went to the Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce recently and talked about major infrastructure development, like a road down the Mackenzie Valley. That, in and of itself, is not a bad idea. We just agreed to build a $165 million bridge. Again, that in and of itself, is not terrible, but do you see the mixed message, Mr. Speaker, when we’re talking about megaprojects, hydro expansions, roads, bridges? It sends a mixed message in a very prosperous economy, the fastest-growing economy in the country, that we as a government can’t figure out a way to realign, refocus, reassess our spending without having to take drastic measures such as just randomly laying off and deleting 200 positions in our public service. It’s a real mixed message, and I don’t like that.

When you add into the same budget this absolute necessity to reduce spending and reduce jobs and mix in the reinvestment, it really shoots the argument of the necessity for the reductions all to heck. I mean, I don’t know how else to describe it. Here we are, we’re crying poor, saying we can’t afford this. Yet in the same budget, we’re undertaking and identifying all these reinvestments. Like I said, all of them together all wrapped up don’t look recognizable to me as anything we have discussed as a government.

If I had wanted to identify possible reductions in the public service, first I would undertake a much needed program review. After that, I would find out if any of the public service members were interested in voluntary separation, early retirement or reassignment. Then, and only then, after every reasonable option had been exhausted, would I be making position cuts as an absolute last resort.

In the February sitting of this Legislature, many of us asked the government, asked the Premier, if these kinds of decisions were going to be made without consultation, without really in-depth analysis. And we were assured that that was not going to happen. I was just looking at 60 pages of Hansard, where many of the Members on this side of the House wanted — sought — reassurances that we would be consulted before something like that happened. As you know, we’ve said it before, but let’s say it again: we get up; we walk out of here; the next day, letters go out to 135 potentially affected employees. Mr. Speaker, that’s not acceptable.

For me, it’s all about getting a good budget. I’m not interested in taking valuable time, the month of June, to debate this budget — I don’t think the budget is salvageable, not for me — when strides could be made during that time to perform the thorough analysis and study that needs to go into the changes, as opposed to spending it here with limited opportunity to change much about the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that at the end of the day, I respect every Member’s right to choose if they can live with this budget or not, or their choice to get into that line-by-line, activity-by-activity, program-by-program debate. I do applaud every Member for taking the time today to explain the reasons for their decisions, because I do believe that the public has the right to know where we stand.

I also want to state, Mr. Speaker, that for me, this is not a confidence issue. This is a consensus government. People can make it a confidence issue if they want to. But I asked for this budget to be prepared on a compressed time frame; I was one of many votes for that to happen. I do not see any loss of face or loss of confidence if the government was to say to the Members on this side of the House, “We realize there are problems with this budget. Let’s get together. Let’s find out if we can salvage this.” But when we ask those questions, we get flat-out refusal and raising the stakes, so to speak. I think that’s completely unnecessary in a consensus government. I think that we are owed the opportunity to come up with a budget and a product that we can all feel confident in.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, those are some of the things that I think are wrong with this budget. It doesn’t take into account the input of 11 of the 19 Members of this Legislature; it’s premised on questionable fiscal forecast information; it is a contradiction to the growing economy and prosperity opportunities around us; the process shows disrespect to the public service. Even if we had to cut positions, there’s a way to do that after all other options have been exhausted. We must provide good fiscal planning, policy and process, premised on guiding principles of reasoned analysis. The damage that this budget, if it were to proceed as it is, would cause would be very costly and would not be demonstrating prudent financial stewardship by making reasoned decisions.

If I didn’t feel so strongly about his budget, I would just go with the flow. But I’m here to make decisions and to defend those decisions. My decision here today — respectfully, Mr. Speaker — is to vote no to the second reading of this budget document. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the principle of the bill, the honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

At second reading, we’re discussing the principle of the bill, and I don’t think it’s any secret that I’ve struggled with the content of this budget. I’ve struggled with whether it’s a good budget or a poor budget.

I’ve been trying to look at the big picture, to look at the Territories as a whole. I’ve been trying to stay away from whether or not there’s something in the budget that’s going to benefit me and my constituents in particular. And I am still conflicted. I really don’t know whether or not this budget is going to be.... I don’t feel at the moment that this budget is going to be a good thing.

Basically, I can’t agree with the principles that are in the budget as it has been presented. I agree that we certainly can’t spend more than we take in. Our revenues have to match our expenditures. I have no problems with that principle. That is one principle in the budget that I can agree with. However, there are other principles that override that for me.

My goal at this point is that I want to get to debate. I’m looking for Ministers to hear my opinions, to hear the opinions of my constituents — and I’ve heard from many of them. And I’m looking for Ministers to respond to the concerns and to the opinions that are going to be presented during debate.

If changes are made by the government, and recommendations from this side of the House to add things back into the budget are accepted by the government, I personally don’t see that as a confidence issue. I see that as perhaps a matter of negotiation, if you wish to use that term. I see it as good consensus government, in that we are having a dialogue. We are discussing both sides together and coming to something on which we can agree.

I’ve mentioned in my statement today that there are three stumbling blocks for me in this budget, and things which are creating difficulties and not allowing me at this point to accept the budget. A new source of revenue isn’t considered; the job cuts, I think, don’t all need to be there, and perhaps none of them; and the lack of emphasis on a coordinated and comprehensive plan for climate change and energy planning.

As I stated in my statement, I need to be convinced. So the bottom line for me is that I want to get this bill to debate. And I’m going to stay firmly on the fence; I will be abstaining. I can at this point neither vote for it or vote against. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the principle of the bill, the honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud my colleagues for standing up here today and discussing the principles of this appropriation bill that’s before us. At second reading, I think it’s important that we do that. It’s important that we let the government once again know what our feelings are on the proposed appropriation bill.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve said it before, and I’m going to say a few things here again today that Members have heard me say: this is not our plan. It’s not our budget.

If I can, we’ll go back to just after the election in October when 19 Members recently elected got together to develop a plan for the future. Northerners Working Together was the title of the strategic vision document that was developed at the Baker Centre those two days that we spent there. It wasn’t much after that that the government came back to Regular Members and said, “We’re going to look at reducing spending by $135 million; we’re going to reinvest $75 million.” Some of us bought into that; some of us questioned it. But it led us down a path, Mr. Speaker, again where it just wasn’t our plan. Nobody — not one Member — at the Baker Centre had any inkling that major reductions were on the horizon. And we had returning Members that were Cabinet Ministers. There was nothing there.

That’s what’s missing, Mr. Speaker. The public needs to know how we could have surpluses running for four years, we get elected, and all of a sudden the sky is falling, we need to reduce spending by $135 million, and by the way, we’re going to reinvest $75 million into strategic initiatives that are those of Cabinet. Regular Members on this side of the House have not had input into where that money’s being spent or directed. Even though we’ve asked, we’ve yet to get a seat at that table. And that causes me a great deal of concern.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier likes to say that I’ve stood up in this House — and I have stood up in this House — and questioned the size and the growth of the public service here in the Northwest Territories. That was two and a half years ago, and two and a half years ago when I stood up and I questioned why the government didn’t have a comprehensive human resource strategy and didn’t have any clue as to what it was doing in terms of hiring, we were hiring in positions where I felt we didn’t need to hire. We needed a plan; we needed a vision for human resources. Yes, I questioned the size and the growth of the public service. Yes, I wanted to go out and have a zero-based review, look at programs.

I said this before and I’ll say it again today: I make decisions for a living, as do the rest of us. That’s what we do; we make decisions. When we make decisions, not only for ourselves but for the constituents we represent, we better make sure that those decisions are based on something sound and concrete, Mr. Speaker. Some of the decisions that have been arrived at by Cabinet, contained in this budget, just do not have that level — that foundation — of analysis, of proof, of justification: call it what you will. That hasn’t been done.

Other Members have said it. We’ve made recommendations to Cabinet. They come back and they say, “Well, your recommendations sound really good. We’re going to have to go out and study them further and have a look at them before we can implement any of them.” Those are our recommendations. But when the government goes back to the departments and says, “Departments, you cut $6 million here, $7 million there, $10 million there,” and they get the answers back from the departments, there’s no analysis there. That’s the thing I struggle with most, Mr. Speaker: where is that analysis? Where is our comprehensive human resource strategy going forward?

Mr. Speaker, we have to be financially prudent, and being financially prudent means taking a look at your operations from time to time — getting that analysis done so that you can make some decisions. Because we’re here making decisions on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories, and we owe it to them, at the very least, to at least do a review and get some analysis done before we make decisions, especially decisions that are going to affect the lives, livelihoods and families of our residents. Many of these folks who have received notification letters are already leaving the Northwest Territories, and that’s a shame.

We should be doing everything in our power to maintain the workforce that we have. If we’re going to look at reductions, there are other ways to go about those reductions. But none of those were palatable to Cabinet. They didn’t come over to us and suggest alternatives. This was it; that was the way it was going to be, Mr. Speaker. I think the residents here in the Northwest Territories are owed more than that.

As I mentioned, they just have not included Regular Members in the strategic initiatives. The day-to-day operations of this government is what Cabinet was elected to their posts to do. The oversight, the day-to-day operations: that’s why they’re there, Mr. Speaker. When it comes to setting the direction, the strategic vision of the people of this territory, in a consensus government that is to include all 19 Members.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put the government on notice that there are 19 Members in this Legislature, and we are going to get to work on developing a strategy and getting a budget for the people that all 19 of us can buy into. Today, the budget that’s before us — the appropriation bill — just is not something that I can put my stamp of approval on, because it doesn’t have my input into it. By extension, by not having my input into the budget, it doesn’t have my constituents’ input. If you could protract that around this table, that’s 11 constituencies that really have had no say in the development of this budget.

Yes, we do have to wear some of it. We forced the government. We asked the government to come forward in May or June to have a budget session with us so we could debate the budget. Yes, we asked that. We could have waited until October; that would have been a full calendar year after the election for the people of the Northwest Territories to have a budget to look at. To some that was unacceptable. To be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure what would change this document — we all know there’s a hiatus during the summer months — between now and October. We may have a business planning process to go through, but that would be about it.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve been left out. We’ve been left out of the eco-trust dollars that have been divvied up. We’ve been left out of the Building Canada Fund monies that have gone to various projects across the territory. We’re let in the door after the fact, after the decisions have been arrived at, and that’s just not good enough.

I don’t believe there’s any utility in making a bad budget worse. I do respect my colleagues, those that want to debate the budget for the next three and a half weeks. They’re to be respected. I want them to know and I want my colleagues to know and the public to know that I will be in here day in and day out fighting the budget — fighting the good fight.

At the end of the day I’m not sure what we can arrive at. I’ve been here long enough to know that the more things change, the more they stay the same. It’s going to be a difficult task. It will be monumental — let’s put it that way — if things change.

We’ll have a vote here today at second reading, and again I just want the government to know and to be on notice that we are over here trying to do our job, trying to put our stamp of approval and our mark on this budget. Hopefully, Cabinet will let us in the door and will listen to our concerns and make some changes to this document. They owe it to the people of the Northwest Territories and, thus, the Regular Members of this House. Mahsi.

The Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve thought long and hard about exactly what’s happened here in the last couple of weeks, but more importantly, after living through the 13th Assembly, I don’t see anything different that we’re doing here through this budget process than we did back then. Like I stated, we do have some major implications of what we did in the 13th Assembly.

Coming from small communities, our services in our communities are next to nil — nil, no mental health workers, no social workers, no policing. Look at the services we have in our communities where you depend on locums to come and fill in, because you can’t find a nurse. You have a situation where you go to the different communities and health centres. It’s a revolving door trying to attract nurses in a lot of these communities. That is a major problem. I feel this budget does not do anything to basically resolve that situation. If anything, it adds to it.

You talk about the easy things — “Well, let’s get rid of vacancies.” The problem with vacancies is that the majority of those vacancies are in communities that can’t fill the positions to begin with, because they lack housing. We have a lack of stable, healthy communities, because the basic programs and services aren’t being delivered. I find it awfully difficult to stand here and support something when I know what the consequences of this decision are going to be.

Mr. Speaker, we have had an opportunity through our business planning process. Yes, it was rushed. Again, in order to make some very drastic changes to the way government works there have to be some changes, but if you’re going to make changes, make it for the best, an improvement of services to all Northerners, especially the ones in small communities.

We follow the Canada Health Act by way of ensuring services to Canadians, yet when it comes to aboriginal communities, we’re no better off than most of our brothers and sisters in the northern provinces. I think it’s that type of reality that sometimes we have to face. Simple things like community empowerment and self-government are slogans that we throw out there when we want to make ourselves feel good.

The reality is that we can’t even hire our own local mental health worker or alcohol and drug worker. They don’t think we have the capacity to take on that job, because somebody didn’t give you the certification to say that you’re competent because you didn’t go to university. Yet you’re there when they need to call you when there’s a suicide in the community or a problem in relation to a crisis in another community. That tells me that there’s no real empowerment ability for communities to really take hold of government programs and services; the controlling mechanism is either at the top or is being muzzled in the middle.

I think we do have to change the way we deliver government. We do have to look at how this government delivers programs and services. I think we also have to be realistic to the potential that we have in the Northwest Territories by way of oil and gas, minerals and, more importantly, megaprojects. We talk about projects where we’re talking a couple hundred thousand here or a million there. We’re talking megaprojects: the $365 million Taltson expansion, the $1.8 billion highway expansion up the Mackenzie, $60 million to put a bridge across the Bear River. We had a battle in this House in regard to the $165 million bridge across the Deh Cho in regard to the Mackenzie. Yet we seem to have a crisis on our hands because of something that might happen in the future.

I’ve been here for a while, and it’s amazing how many times the sky was falling and basically we were in trouble, and then all of a sudden a bag of money falls from the sky. I believe that we have to review exactly how government governs, how programs and services are delivered. Again, it has to be done in a way that’s just and fair to our employees, our communities and the people of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, I stood up in the House in the February session, during which I asked the Premier a question.

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if he has a system in place to notify affected MLAs if there are going to be any vacancies in their ridings by way of positions. Then we can be informed ahead of time, and we are able to react to our constituents when they find out there are notices given or that positions are going to be removed from our constituencies.”

The response from the Premier:

“We’re going to work in a way that is respectful for Members as well as for employees when we do make decisions on what positions may be affected. We’re going to work in that environment, where we’re working in a transparent form. We definitely don’t want Members to walk back to their communities when a decision has been made and you’re approached by people who you’re not aware have been affected. We are going to try to do business differently.”

Mr. Speaker, that’s exactly what didn’t happen. I went home and found out second-hand, “Did you hear that so-and-so got laid off?” I didn’t even have a notification letter.

The part that really gets to me is that one of the areas that was cut is an individual who’s been with marine operations for almost 30 years. One of the areas that they wanted to cut for savings was this individual’s livelihood. He has a large family. For him that’s the only means of employment for the whole year. The government wants to save $30,000. For $30,000 you’re taking away someone’s livelihood — someone who’s been committed to the Department of Transportation for years. I can see it in light of the expansion with the Department of Transportation, where you have assistant deputy ministers or assistant to assistant deputy ministers or a deputy minister responsible for marine operations, a deputy minister responsible for transportation operations. Why don’t you take out one of those guys and save yourselves $165,000?

Again, no thought was given in regard to how these positions were going to be eliminated. No plan was in place in regard to how that was going to be effected. But in a small community like Fort McPherson $30,000 is the average earnings of most people. For $30,000 you have to sustain yourself in these small communities, yet the cost of living is somewhere around $60,000.

I think we’ve got to be realistic how we position ourselves and where those cuts are going to take place. Yes, I know there are a lot of cuts that are going to take place in headquarters, regional level and whatnot, but we do have to review how government operates. We do have to review exactly where the expenditures of government are. The biggest cost to our budget is in the area of salaries and benefits, looking in the range of $340 million. I think it’s important that we do look at that once in a while to impress on ourselves what programs and services are needed and, more importantly, when they’re not needed, to have a transitional process in place so those employees have an opportunity to transfer from one area where they work to a new field where they may have to be educated.

Again, I do have areas of concern with this budget. I hope deep down that with Members on the other side of the House we can try and find ways of looking at government-wide reductions, looking at the budget to see where we can possibly find savings. I know there has been some effort made by government, but it’s not enough. I think we do have to do a better job of finding those reductions. I don’t think we have to continue to help big business get bigger than what they already are but to help the little guys in the small communities who are struggling simply to get access to a nurse, a doctor, a mental health worker or even a teacher. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Mr. Speaker, there are some things I like in this budget, and a number of them were emphasized in the highlights of the budget by the Minister of Finance last week: $3.1 million for nurses in small communities, $500,000 extra for the arts and culture programs. I like the land-use planning focus and policy development on water and some of the renewable energy initiatives. However, many of these — and all of the highlights, essentially — add up to about 6 per cent of the budget and really don’t reflect the degree of change that I think we need.

I have concerns regarding the lack of a cohesive and apparent vision throughout this document. At least, I don’t see it. It may be there in some other perspectives, but I don’t see it.

I think we all agreed on the need for living within our means and for some redirection, which would be based on program review. I think that was a starting point, and we were all at the table at that point. However, this budget to me appears more “business as usual” with a few exceptions: the early childhood development and child care. I like those programs.

In particular, the lay-offs. My understanding of our agreement on how to approach this was that they would be truly based on program review, that to sort of randomly lay them off or even to eliminate positions that were vacant or with retirees was not appropriate for redirection that was based on some thorough and comprehensive analysis, yet that is what appears to me has been done here.

Another aspect of this that I think goes against our vision is that there is centralization. I think we’re talking about 70 layoffs in the regions and about 50 in Yellowknife. As Members have pointed out, from time to time repeatedly, the loss of even one or two people in a small community is a huge blow to that local economy.

I have to acknowledge that we were dealing with the impacts of coming into this situation in the middle of a budget year, that we had some time pressures that we all played a role in ramping up and that the layoffs were an added complexity that we had to deal with. I want to stress that we really should only be changing what can be based on a thorough program review, and that was the understanding that I think we were moving forward on, and that hasn’t happened. I asked the Premier, the Minister of Finance, about this the other day, and he didn’t provide a response to that question. I still have that question, as I know a lot of other people do. We simply haven’t been provided with that reasoning, and that’s what is lacking here.

The communications — I’ve said this before — have not been sufficient to enable the public to participate in this debate. I see in the budget presented that there’s a commitment being made for consultation on revenue generation and so on in the future, and I wholeheartedly support that. But, again, I think that should have been part of this. We repeatedly brought this up, and it didn’t ever seem to result in more effective communication or a serious attempt to address that issue.

Finally, I still don’t see a visionary and progressive response to the issues that are most fundamental to me and my constituents and that got me to the table. These are the issues that I mentioned in my Member’s statement this afternoon: that of climate change and the rising costs and declining availability of oil.

There’s been a lot said already on process, and I’ve said a few additional comments. I can’t compare it to the past, but what I will say is that the Premier, when we met with him on a number of occasions, made commitments that we responded to positively. Unfortunately, they did not seem to come to fruition for whatever reason. I’m not laying blame here, but the fact is that those commitments didn’t ever get realized to the point where we actually felt like we had serious input into this process.

I want to acknowledge the commitment of this government to form a special joint committee on climate change. I think that’s an indication of some interest there. I do have a continuing lack of confidence that recommendations from that would fall into fertile ground based on some of the statements I’ve heard on what our direction is going to be. But anyway, I wanted to emphasize that I do appreciate that.

Finally, I look forward to debating this bill, and I will fully participate in that. I hope that we can clearly identify the opportunities that we have and move in that direction, something that I don’t think has been done yet, and if there’s any way to get that done through this debate or through some flexibility on the part of the Cabinet, that would be much appreciated by me and my public. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Nanukput, Mr. Jacobson.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, today I will support the second reading, only because of the debate and the opportunity that I’ll have a chance to.... There are a few good things in my riding that’ll be coming out of this. There is the access road for my community of Tuk. These are little problems in the south which are big problems in the smaller communities. Access to gravel: we haven’t had gravel in five years. Water source: there is a water shortage in my community right now. Sewage lagoon: decanting problems earlier and earlier every year because the community’s.... Our graveyard’s full. We have nowhere to put our deceased and our loved ones. The high cost of living in regard to the Power Corporation and putting it onto our people, trying to get gasification for my community of Tuk….

This is a back door also, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the global warming that we’ve been having every year. That’s why I’m supporting it today. But it doesn’t mean I support everything in this budget. I want to let the colleagues across the floor know, and I’ll be fighting line by line against the layoffs and for better things in my community and the communities that I serve in the NWT as a whole.

Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. To the principle of the bill, the honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

To the principle of the bill, I won’t be supporting the bill today. When the Premier came to us originally and told us that we were in some financial woes and that we had to redefine how we do business, I was actually quite optimistic. I thought, okay, great, finally we’re going to be able to break into the government — you know, find some efficiency, stop wasting money, stop bleeding out money.

I was also optimistic, when we asked the Premier across the floor, that jobs would be the last resort. I was hopeful that that would in fact be the case. When the Main Estimates came forward, it became incredibly obvious incredibly fast that in many of the departments that are out there, the primary way of reducing money was job cuts. There doesn’t appear to be a lot of logic to me in many of the job cuts that have been brought forward.

I’m not opposed to job cuts necessarily. I think in an organization this size there probably are some redundant positions out there that aren’t adding a whole lot of value to this organization, and the money could be better spent elsewhere for the provision of services and programs to the people of the Northwest Territories. I’m not opposed to cuts, but I’m opposed to these cuts, because I don’t see the logic in them.

There’s been a lot of discussion. If you listen to the previous ten speakers, it becomes pretty clear pretty fast that there isn’t anybody on this side of the House that supports this budget. Everybody is opposed in some way; even those that are supporting it today are opposed and have indicated that as well. I could go with them. I could say, “Okay, let’s get it into debate.”

But the longer I sit here, the pessimist in me is now starting to think that all the good things that are said are not necessarily going to occur. And I could sit here and debate these things line by line, which I will do. I will be debating them line by line. If I sit here and debate them line by line, we can throw motion after motion at you and we could delete a whole lot of stuff from this budget. The problem is, then we have a worse budget than the one you guys are putting in front of us today. So that’s the main reason that I’m not going to be supporting it today, because I think we need not waste our time.

We need to scrap this budget. We need to go back to the beginning. We need to put our house in order first before we start getting carried away with all these reinvestments. I like the concept of reinvestment; I think we should do them, but not until we get our house in order. Right now, the budget that’s coming forward is not a house in order. It’s a house in cut mode so that we can do some fancy things, so we can put some things up on the board saying, “Look, we’ve reinvested this money. Look how great we are; we’ve done great things.”

I don’t think that’s what the people of the Northwest Territories need. I don’t think that’s what’s good for the people of the Northwest Territories, and, as a result, I can’t support this budget this time. I will be joining my colleagues, fighting it line by line and hope we will be able to convince you to put some stuff back in. I’m not optimistic at this point. I’m sure we’ll be able to cut some stuff out. We’re going to end up with a worse budget, and at the end of the day we’re all going to have to vote on that.

So in closing, I won’t be supporting this budget, and I’d like to request a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. To the principle of the bill. The mover of the bill, Mr. Roland.

Mr. Speaker, when we sat down as Members of the 16th Legislative Assembly, just after territorial elections, we’d heard from people of the territory; they wanted to see things done differently. They wanted to see us continue to reinvest, as well as take control of where we were going. We’ve heard things almost from the day of the announcement that reductions needed to be done and that we would be focusing on reinvestments. That’s been the message from day one: We need to cap or manage our growth and look at the reinvestments. Those reinvestments, Members were aware, would have to come from the internal piece. As well, the idea of revenue growth is looked at. In fact, we want to go out and have that discussion later on in the year, so that we can be properly prepared for the people of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve heard much about the growth of government and some of the graphs that are laid out there. This budget presents a balanced approach to investments and people in the Northwest Territories and some new initiatives to start looking at areas that we’ve continually looked over. Returning Members are well aware that there are more than numerous requests that are left on the floor when any budget is prepared, because there are just never enough resources to implement, whether it’s a new initiative by a department, a new initiative suggested by a Member or a new initiative that’s jointly suggested by Members in Cabinet.

Let’s talk about revenue growth. Mr. Speaker, when you look at the graph on B2 of the Budget Address, that begins to look at our fiscal picture as the Government of the Northwest Territories. We talk about balancing and the room we have available, as Members would put it. We’ve had the UNW and other unions out there saying, “There’s plenty of time. Don’t do anything. Protect us and we’re going to be okay.”

Mr. Speaker, when you look at from 2004–2005 to 2007–2008, that’s the last government that was in place. Let’s account for the revenue that actually came in at that time. We had three different formula financing arrangements. One that we complained about didn’t work. We had agreement from across the country that it needed to be changed. By doing that, we got a bump-up of revenue to a temporary amount. Further to that, the second and final one.… The formula financing arrangement we are now in, for the life of this Assembly, sets a very clear path of what the growth will be based on. We also got another bump-up at that time, so in that time slot, between 2004–2005 and 2007–2008, we had two rather large increments made by the federal government as an investment in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at that graph, we started out at around about $850 million. We ended up, in that term of government, being well over a billion dollars in expenditures. With that rate of expenditure growth, we won’t be able to survive as a Government of the Northwest Territories.

This budget puts in place a vision of where we can go. Yes, there are some difficulties in the choices we have to make today, but Mr. Speaker, this budget puts in place a reduction target. In fact, when you look at what was accepted, we’re far short of our targets. What was accepted equals about 2.8 per cent of $1.2 billion. When Members say, “There’s nothing being spent in my community,” I’m waiting for the debate we will have in the House to show the hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars we’re investing in our communities in O&M services — whether it’s that nurse, whether it’s that teacher, whether it’s the Power Corporation, whether it’s the Territorial Power Support Program — that grows on an annual basis.

Yes, we need to do it better. As I stood to run for this position, I talked about a need to change the way we do business. That’s what I presented to Members. I made commitments to the Members: let’s do it differently; let’s sit down more often and have that debate and that discussion on how our plan is coming forth. In fact, I got some feedback from Members. For example, the Infrastructure Committee that’s looking at how we spend infrastructure in this bill was accepted by Members as a good way of doing business.

Although we’ve heard Members talk about the Building Canada Fund, Mr. Speaker, the Building Canada Fund was brought to Members before we sent it back down to Ottawa, and that’s not a final list. Ottawa is doing that. And, in fact, we have a Member who had his bypass road project added to it, since our discussion.

So, Mr. Speaker, we’ve got some things here that show we’ve responded to committee requests. We’ve made some changes and we need to make more changes, I agree. I don’t think there’s anybody on this side of the House that would disagree with a need to look at things differently.

The simple fact that the Refocusing Government initiative will take on a huge workload in the next cycle is because we looked at what was presented as trying to meet the initial targets. If we accepted those initial recommendations from departments of targets, we would be gutting many of our communities. So we sent those back and said that we’ve got to look at this differently.

I went to Members and asked for more time to give us a thorough review so we could have this back and forth. And I’ll say for the record, a couple of Members of this House convinced a lot of the new Members that there needs to be a change. They didn’t like what was being presented. It was convoluted, hard to understand. I was talking like a Chinese fortune cookie, I guess.

But, Mr. Speaker, I’ve been already told probably three times, by Mrs. Groenewegen, that if she were Premier, she would say it this way or would have done it this other way — once in the House, actually.

Mr. Speaker, we’re here as 19 Members. I presented an opportunity to change, and I’ve continued to present that. But imagine if we were to meet our targets that we set, after we talked to Members, if we met our targets…. I mean, it’s 2.8 per cent right now. What are we going to do with what we have to do for 10 per cent? By further delaying the process, we would be causing harm at that point.

Mr. Speaker, this budget starts to lay the vision of what the future can be in the Northwest Territories. The reinvestment, going away from the hat-in-hand mentality we’ve had, going to Ottawa saying, “Give us more, because we need more to turn the corner,” and saying, “In the Northwest Territories, we can begin to make our own decisions….”

Mr. Speaker, a lot of this is based on previous directions. We’re building on the foundation that was laid before, Building Our Future. We’re looking to implement phase two of the framework for action on family violence as a part of this budget. Encourage healthy choices and address addictions — part of this. Safety and security in communities — part of this budget. And they are a small part of it.

As Mr. Ramsay stated, he should send us back to the drawing board for another review. He even stated over the summer you might not get much. What will you get in the fall time — more of the same? Ninety-five per cent of it is accepted with some tinkering around.

That’s what we tried to change. Members accepted the need for change. The change still can happen. I believe this starts to set the base for that change.

And when you look at these investments that are being proposed — the forced growth that happens — this wasn’t a budget that was randomly thrown together. It’s based on the $1.2 billion expended based on the previous year — forced growth.

The call letters go out in June. New initiatives. Call letters go out later on that summer. Capital investment requests go out that summer as well. A lot of that work was done by the previous government. And I came to Members, and said, “Let’s take that budget and let’s redo it for ourselves.” So we went with an interim appropriation. I came back and I said that we need more time.

Now I believe what we’ve put together is a balanced approach. It is the beginning of change. I think, as we get into the detail, you’ll be able to see that change, the investments made in the Northwest Territories, the investments that start changing the way we do business and thinking as the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Yes, we need to make some more change. But if we continue down the same path we are, the operation and expenditures will outgrow and outstrip the resources. Capital infrastructure Members are talking about in their communities will not be affordable, have not been affordable because we haven’t been able to move along. We need to create that flexibility.

Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to change is here. We can make that change. I’ve asked Members to help with that. Yes, we’ve had to go back. Members can’t deny that when this came up, we were going to go back to the meeting of May-June, and we were going to put this together. But we go back to the typical way of doing business.

So even this isn’t a departure from what was done for the Assemblies that I’ve been involved with. And for those who say that there was no indication that we’re in trouble financially as a Government of the Northwest Territories, I just refer you back to my last Budget Address in the last Assembly. The fact is, we knew there was a growing problem and presented that to Members; Members have agreed. Now that we’re starting to see that detail, Members are concerned. I share that concern. My community is the second-largest hit, when you talk about position reductions. I look at that and say, well, why is that? Well, we are a regional centre. It’s not that we’ve picked on communities; we’ve tried to reduce that.

We went back to departments and gave them targets. They had to review that. They came back forward with initiatives. Like I said, we turned many back. We’re far short of meeting that target. That’s why we had to reduce in reinvestments as well, and we’ll have to continue to do that same thing if this is passed. The government will have to look at not making reinvestments. Guaranteed, if you don’t reinvest in critical areas, you will be guaranteeing status quo. The system does not want to change, and I call the system “government.”

There’s an opportunity to start that change; it’s got to start somewhere. If you don’t start to make that change now, I can guarantee you, the system will stay the same and the status quo is what you’ll have.

I listened to Members; you shared that about notification. Let’s go back to near the equivalent amount. In 1995–1996, $150 million was taken out of government expenditures. A large part of that was capital expenditures. The total amount of impacted individuals in the Northwest Territories was close to 700, and it was discussed at that time. We have $135 million, we’re suggesting, and we’re reinvesting. We’ve limited that now, as we’ve heard from the Minister of Human Resources, to about 118 and we’re working with the rest of them to find alternate placements and potentially early retirement. So we’re working with people and being proactive in that manner.

Encouraged by Members: let them know early. Encouraged by the union: let them know early. We did that, and yes, there was an error in HR of getting that information out before Members had a chance to look at the details of all the community impact. There was an error, and I accepted that. I admitted it. I went to Members and I said, “We should have got you the information up front. That was supposed to be what happened.” So I’ve accepted that. We’ve erred in that area, and we won’t be making that kind of an error again. But that wasn’t trying to address what Members are saying. So we have a lot of work to do, and there’s a lot of detail in this document.

Between infrastructure and O&M, close to $1.3 billion is being spent in the Northwest Territories. Let’s not turn a blind eye to that. Let’s not turn away from the opportunity that does present itself, so that change can happen and it starts today, with this process. That’s where we come to you and say, “Here’s an opportunity” — and I thank Members who support this at least for the debate — “for doing that.” Members are aware, Mr. Speaker; they know where I stand about this budget bill. So they can look at it how they like; but the fact is, this bill has been put together with a lot of work, a lot of effort. Unfortunately, we’ve had some steps here that have upset Members, and there’s an impact on communities. Some would say there’s no impact on their communities, or little impact, and there’s little reinvestment. Well, we want to change that. We want to make that happen.

When I first got elected, I came down here thinking I could make a change now. Well, it took a while, and those Members that have been around — there are four of us that have been around since the 13th Legislative Assembly — know it takes a while to get things into the books, because there’s so much demand pent up for additional reinvestments.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope Members will have lots of debate about what is actually in the document, about what is being spent in our communities and what is being reinvested in our communities. Because we’re trying to change things, but change does not come easy, I’ll tell you that, and I’ve been part of this eight months trying to make change happen. It’s a painful process. But status quo will not get the Northwest Territories from where we’re going to head. I would encourage Members to look at that graph that was pointed out earlier, when you looked at B2, the growth — that’s the path of where we should come from.

The fact is we know our future now. We know our revenue situation, and in fact we’ve got some big hurdles coming up and we have to address those. If we don’t address those, then this is going to be.... This budget would be considered a minimal change in the way we do business. If we don’t take advantage and draft what the future may hold and take hold of that and start to change it today — just thinking about the impact today — it’s going to be greater the next day. And when you look at B3 when you talk about the reduction and the debt situation we have as a government, there will be no reinvestments. We will only be paying for fuel and electricity costs in the existing way.

This budget starts to look at alternative forms, and we will continue to try to do that. But we need to hear from you — agreed, absolutely. And my commitment is still there. When we get past this process and we get into actual business plans, there will be more sit-down meetings about what’s being developed, not what’s being already presented and stamped. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A recorded vote has been requested. Mr. Clerk. All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

Mr. Roland, Mr. Michael McLeod, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Bob McLeod, Mr. Robert McLeod, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Jacobson, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Lafferty, Ms. Lee, Mr. Miltenberger.

All those opposed, please stand.

Mr. Krutko, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Ramsay, Mrs. Groenewegen.

All those abstaining, please stand.

Ms. Bisaro.

The results of the vote: 11 for, six against, one abstained. The motion is carried. Bill 8 has had second reading and stands before Committee of the Whole.

Motion carried; Bill 8, Appropriation Act, 2008–2009, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.

Item 21, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, Bill 4, Bill 7, Bill 8, Committee Report 2-16(2), Committee Report 3-16(2), Committee Report 4-16(2) and Tabled Document 37-16(2), with Mr. Krutko in the chair.